Party idea, two right wing parties

[Adam Griffin]

Here's the issue Griffin: the party doesn't decide who we're going to elect. We don't sit down and try to rig elections on behalf of two of our candidates at the expense of a third. We have some degree of GOTV obviously, but the party isn't telling people whom to vote for beyond listing our candidates. The candidates themselves sometimes tell people whom to vote for naturally , but the party isn't going to carve ourselves into nice little factions and tell people, okay now this group vote for JCL and this group vote for Maxwell, and have no one vote for Tmth because, apparently he's the type of nebulous moderate we need to purge ourselves of in case we are ever in danger of winning elections. Maybe Labor runs itself like the Soviet Gulag, but the Federalists do not.

So you guys just throw your votes at the wall and see what sticks? Interesting - but unfortunately I do not believe that for one second. Your party is hell-bent on winning at this point and will do whatever it takes to do so. Hey, I'm not knocking it - but let's not dress it up as anything other than what it is. How exactly are your voters making their decisions? There's not much out there in terms of articulated policy: PM pleas or party instruction seem to be the most logical choices. Based on what I've seen in the past, JCL certainly should have more support than he seems to be getting in this race from you all.

There's also a question of loyalty - you guys haven't had any mass infusion of people from other parties as of late, so it just boggles me that there's no loyalty to the candidates who have been true Federalists for ages. Whether it's two moderates, a moderate and a conservative or two conservatives, you guys have the ability to win two seats hands-down. The choice that has been made displays a disregard for your more ideological elements - and yes, that is something which our two parties see differently.

What I can certainly say at this point is that you and other representatives of your party are doing a good job at unifying the Federalist Party even more.

Oh, sweetie, we've been doing that for you guys for a looong time. Though I'm glad you admitted that half of the organization of the Federalist Party is due to the Labor Party; most movements in this game are nothing but anti-Labor action. Do keep in mind, though, that this discussion was not started by any of us. Still, how could I resist weighing in?

Conservatism by defintion is defined by the actions of the left that it is reacting to.

Thank you! Finally, someone admits that you guys base decisions off of what the left does in this game. Makes you wonder what will happen if you guys ever actually control the Senate + Presidency.

I must say I find it wonderfull that this concern for having the right get its voice heard to have developed amongst people on the left, a group whose approach for a long time was on driving such people like Pingvin and JCL out and if not that then discrediting them at every turn as a means of ostracizing them.

Yes, it's expected that we would do that. What's hilarious is that you guys are doing the same thing to them with your votes. If it's as organic as TJ says, then that truly means that there is no home in the Federalist Party for the far-right (and hell, maybe even the center-right).

[Adam Griffin]

And for the Federalists who think I'm being too hard on them: read the CU thread where I posted. I'd much rather help elect a bunch of right-wingers that will most likely botch things than hand complete control of the country back to the barely-left.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Conservatism by defintion is defined by the actions of the left that it is reacting to.

Thank you! Finally, someone admits that you guys base decisions off of what the left does in this game. Makes you wonder what will happen if you guys ever actually control the Senate + Presidency.

Actually I was thinking of the changes to Conservatism that occured between the 1880's and 1930's. How the ideology that started in America under the RL Hamilton, became that of Bob Taft.

Objective 1: Order some tea.
Objective 2: Get unemployment under 6% for like the first time in six or seven years.
Objective 3: Order some more tea
Objective 4: Devolve something to the regions.
Objective 5: Man the tea cups are just too damn small now.
Objective 6: Support Regional Education Reforms
Objective 7: Buy some lemons

[Goldwater]

Conservatism by defintion is defined by the actions of the left that it is reacting to.

Thank you! Finally, someone admits that you guys base decisions off of what the left does in this game. Makes you wonder what will happen if you guys ever actually control the Senate + Presidency.

Actually I was thinking of the changes to Conservatism that occured between the 1880's and 1930's. How the ideology that started in America under the RL Hamilton, became that of Bob Taft.

Objective 1: Order some tea.
Objective 2: Get unemployment under 6% for like the first time in six or seven years.
Objective 3: Order some more tea
Objective 4: Devolve something to the regions.
Objective 5: Man the tea cups are just too damn small now.
Objective 6: Support Regional Education Reforms
Objective 7: Buy some lemons

Can they be combustible lemons?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I must say I find it wonderfull that this concern for having the right get its voice heard to have developed amongst people on the left, a group whose approach for a long time was on driving such people like Pingvin and JCL out and if not that then discrediting them at every turn as a means of ostracizing them.

Yes, it's expected that we would do that. What's hilarious is that you guys are doing the same thing to them with your votes. If it's as organic as TJ says, then that truly means that there is no home in the Federalist Party for the far-right (and hell, maybe even the center-right).

Is there ever a situation in life where someone getting screwed isn't viewed as unavoidable by the left?

We have to screw the moderates to support the right, we have to screw the right to support the moderates.

Perhaps I should be asking whether or not you think there is such a thing as common ground.

[Donerail]

Conservatism by defintion is defined by the actions of the left that it is reacting to.

Thank you! Finally, someone admits that you guys base decisions off of what the left does in this game. Makes you wonder what will happen if you guys ever actually control the Senate + Presidency.

Actually I was thinking of the changes to Conservatism that occured between the 1880's and 1930's. How the ideology that started in America under the RL Hamilton, became that of Bob Taft.

Objective 1: Order some tea.
Objective 2: Get unemployment under 6% for like the first time in six or seven years.
Objective 3: Order some more tea
Objective 4: Devolve something to the regions.
Objective 5: Man the tea cups are just too damn small now.
Objective 6: Support Regional Education Reforms
Objective 7: Buy some lemons

Can they be combustible lemons?

Damn interventionists and their combustible lemons...

[Napoleon]

I'm pretty sure the old lead from behind strategy is a major factor for the continued losses Yankee.

[Adam Griffin]

Is there ever a situation in life where someone getting screwed isn't viewed as unavoidable by the left?

We have to screw the moderates to support the right, we have to screw the right to support the moderates.

Perhaps I should be asking whether or not you think there is such a thing as common ground.

Your party chose to throw JCL under the bus - that was avoidable.

And there's plenty of common ground in this game, so much so that actual strong stances on issues apparently can't be taken. Laborites are viewed as "extremists" when they do not agree with pro-business, heavily-reliant social policy that for the most part has already been achieved. Federalists feel like they cannot actually say what they believe for fear of losing elections. Take a look at the PC thread and you'll see people pouring out over the notion that you actually have to agree with a vast majority of what said group adopts as its platform - as opposed to it being a pointless clique.

The reason that both of our parties are still struggling in this game when compared to our actual numbers is because that "common ground" - in this game - is nothing more than pan-ideological, personality-based nonsense that revolves around who can send out the most flattering PMs to voters who insist on being moderate heroes. If I had taken the "common ground" approach as opposed to standing where I actually stand, then I'd already have been President.

If you want common ground to exist for tangible purposes - and not just some drivel that gets punted around during elections - then your party should consider embracing the members that actually stand for something in the first place. Otherwise, we all might as well fuse and pander to the least decisive ones in the group.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm pretty sure the old lead from behind strategy is a major factor for the continued losses Yankee.

Lead from behind? I don't recall invading Libya.

[Supersonic]

Conservatism by defintion is defined by the actions of the left that it is reacting to.

Thank you! Finally, someone admits that you guys base decisions off of what the left does in this game. Makes you wonder what will happen if you guys ever actually control the Senate + Presidency.

Actually I was thinking of the changes to Conservatism that occured between the 1880's and 1930's. How the ideology that started in America under the RL Hamilton, became that of Bob Taft.

Objective 1: Order some tea.
Objective 2: Get unemployment under 6% for like the first time in six or seven years.
Objective 3: Order some more tea
Objective 4: Devolve something to the regions.
Objective 5: Man the tea cups are just too damn small now.
Objective 6: Support Regional Education Reforms
Objective 7: Buy some lemons

Did someone say tea?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just a token gesture so that you will vote for us and then we can screw you once we get into power, obviously.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I understand many think I'm of the far right all because of ONE wedge social issue. Its simply not true. My very first act in this game was a firm endorsement of a centrist against a myriad of leftist candidates for president and you know what? He won. I firmly believe the Federalist cause can rise above the heights the RPP reached. That's why I'm staying as one.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Most of my comments on marriage were in response to the intolerance many here have towards traditional marriage and the Christian worldview. Plus why should the Atlasian senate have final say on an issue that should be handled on the regional level in a game like this?

As for gun control you also need to look at when I've talked about support for background checks and comprehensive education in the proper use of said firearms. Its totally unfair to cherrypick that statement when the other statements exist and that was in response to TNF and his view in taking away the guns of law enforcement.

The loading nuclear waste and shooting it into the sun thing...... for an enviromentalist as most leftists such as yourself are, whatever happened to an all of the above idea to solutions to environmental problems?

With regards to evolution you would rather believe a crackpot like Darwin blindly instead of men like George Washington Carver, Copernicus, Galileo, Issac Newton, Ron and Rand Paul, Kelvin, Faraday, Pascal and Pasteur amongst many others like DiVinci

How is repealing the direct election of senators or the income tax bizarre?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Most of my comments on marriage were in response to the intolerance many here have towards traditional marriage and the Christian worldview. Plus why should the Atlasian senate have final say on an issue that should be handled on the regional level in a game like this?

As for gun control you also need to look at when I've talked about support for background checks and comprehensive education in the proper use of said firearms. Its totally unfair to cherrypick that statement when the other statements exist and that was in response to TNF and his view in taking away the guns of law enforcement.

The loading nuclear waste and shooting it into the sun thing...... for an enviromentalist as most leftists such as yourself are, whatever happened to an all of the above idea to solutions to environmental problems?

With regards to evolution you would rather believe a crackpot like Darwin blindly instead of men like George Washington Carver, Copernicus, Galileo, Issac Newton, Ron and Rand Paul, Kelvin, Faraday, Pascal and Pasteur amongst many others like DiVinci

How is repealing the direct election of senators or the income tax bizarre?

You didn't seriously just compare Charles Darwin (who ftr was NOT the first person to talk about evolution) to the Pauls?

[Maxwell]

There's already a party that's pretty libertarian. The Democratic-Republican Party. We only have 4 members, so I don't think there's much of a market for that.

the D-R party seems to be for those Libertarians who can't deal with being a Federalist. I can understand where they come from, but personally, as a some kind of Libertarian myself, I think I fit in rather well.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Most of my comments on marriage were in response to the intolerance many here have towards traditional marriage and the Christian worldview. Plus why should the Atlasian senate have final say on an issue that should be handled on the regional level in a game like this?

As for gun control you also need to look at when I've talked about support for background checks and comprehensive education in the proper use of said firearms. Its totally unfair to cherrypick that statement when the other statements exist and that was in response to TNF and his view in taking away the guns of law enforcement.

The loading nuclear waste and shooting it into the sun thing...... for an enviromentalist as most leftists such as yourself are, whatever happened to an all of the above idea to solutions to environmental problems?

With regards to evolution you would rather believe a crackpot like Darwin blindly instead of men like George Washington Carver, Copernicus, Galileo, Issac Newton, Ron and Rand Paul, Kelvin, Faraday, Pascal and Pasteur amongst many others like DiVinci

How is repealing the direct election of senators or the income tax bizarre?

You didn't seriously just compare Charles Darwin (who ftr was NOT the first person to talk about evolution) to the Pauls?

Not just the Pauls (who are accomplished medical doctors) but George Washington Carver and a whole bunch of scientific greats. Compared to them Darwin is nothing but a crackpot.

[Donerail]

Most of my comments on marriage were in response to the intolerance many here have towards traditional marriage and the Christian worldview. Plus why should the Atlasian senate have final say on an issue that should be handled on the regional level in a game like this?

As for gun control you also need to look at when I've talked about support for background checks and comprehensive education in the proper use of said firearms. Its totally unfair to cherrypick that statement when the other statements exist and that was in response to TNF and his view in taking away the guns of law enforcement.

The loading nuclear waste and shooting it into the sun thing...... for an enviromentalist as most leftists such as yourself are, whatever happened to an all of the above idea to solutions to environmental problems?

With regards to evolution you would rather believe a crackpot like Darwin blindly instead of men like George Washington Carver, Copernicus, Galileo, Issac Newton, Ron and Rand Paul, Kelvin, Faraday, Pascal and Pasteur amongst many others like DiVinci

How is repealing the direct election of senators or the income tax bizarre?

Okay. Dude, I like you. But damn it you're digging yourself a bigger hole here. Nobody here has an issue with Christianity and nobody is seriously trying to destroy 'traditional marriage'. We're just not legislating on the basis of Christianity. We accept equality in marriage, as do (I would venture to say) most Federalists. As a Christian I've been able to reconcile my faith and gay equality. As both an environmentalist and a supporter of nuclear power, shooting it into the sun is in no way any kind of good option. Rockets fail. Pretty often. A rocket plummeting into a populated area filled with nuclear materials is not a good idea to even be remotely possible. Darwin is not a crackpot and is a much better biologist than a Senator/ophthalmologist whose job in no way confronts studying the theory of evolution. And the income tax is the main method of government revenue, so repealing it is bizarre. And repealing electing our representatives is inherently anti-democratic, and is out of the mainstream of both Atlasia and the US.

[tmthforu94]

Why can't anyone spell Isaac right? Jeesh...

[ilikeverin]

I should note that Atlasia's voting system is very amenable to party splits.  Creating a new party will not doom the right's chances of success

[LastVoter]

Griffin, I feel deeply flattered by your sudden interest in the well-being of Atlasian conservatives.

Believe it or not, there's actually some genuine sentiment behind it.

It's quite evident that this is an attempt to drive a wedge between different groups within the Federalist Party. I can't even blame you for that - you are part of the Labor Party leadership so weakening our party is in your interest - but it's fairly obvious what you're trying here.

I can assure you that if I were still in leadership, this GOTV wouldn't look like it does.

Of course I'm trying to drive a wedge in, but that does not mean that what I am saying is not true. You're an ideologue, yourself: how does it feel to have to constantly water down your selection and positions (when they're actually articulated) for no good reason? It's not the Whig Party anymore. I keep hearing about this unified right - a unified right can elect whatever type of candidate it wants to at this point. There's no reason you guys couldn't have elected JCL & Maxwell, and you know it. Continue on this path and you'll beat the new merger going on in the other thread for the title of Liberal 2.0. You'll win elections but you'll accomplish jack-shit in terms of conservative governance.

The far-right in this party needs to make its voice heard and demand representation. If it can't succeed in that, then it should take its votes elsewhere.

Here's the issue Griffin: the party doesn't decide who we're going to elect. We don't sit down and try to rig elections on behalf of two of our candidates at the expense of a third. We have some degree of GOTV obviously, but the party isn't telling people whom to vote for beyond listing our candidates. The candidates themselves sometimes tell people whom to vote for naturally , but the party isn't going to carve ourselves into nice little factions and tell people, okay now this group vote for JCL and this group vote for Maxwell, and have no one vote for Tmth because, apparently he's the type of nebulous moderate we need to purge ourselves of in case we are ever in danger of winning elections. Maybe Labor runs itself like the Soviet Gulag, but the Federalists do not.

Labor is more of a good 'ol boys club.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

With regards to evolution you would rather believe a crackpot like Darwin blindly instead of men like George Washington Carver, Copernicus, Galileo, Issac Newton, Ron and Rand Paul, Kelvin, Faraday, Pascal and Pasteur amongst many others like DiVinci

It's da Vinci, empty head.

[Hash]

With regards to evolution you would rather believe a crackpot like Darwin blindly instead of men like George Washington Carver, Copernicus, Galileo, Issac Newton, Ron and Rand Paul, Kelvin, Faraday, Pascal and Pasteur amongst many others like DiVinci

It's da Vinci, empty head.

Besides, anyone who puts 'Ron and Rand Paul' in the same sentence alongside 'DiVinci', Copernicus, Galileo and Newton should be gassed.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, you're destroying traditional marriage because you're eliminating the entire concept. Now, I'm happy to vote for others like yourself (see my first preference), on the grounds that we have a truce on these issues. You don't push the same Labor party line, we support you in the elections.

Want to go to war over this, you'll happily lose folks like JCL and myself and our support. Forever.

Not voting for you is less of a consequence then going against what our faith teaches.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Far from it, you're legislating contrary to Christianity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you believe it's discriminatory that marriage is limited to only one person?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So. Show me where Jesus blesses gay marriage. I don't see it. Personally, I think you're lying here. You don't really care what Christ has to say so long as it's in line with your social liberalism.

Prove me wrong. Show me how Jesus does indeed state that your believe is coherent with his teachings.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government functioned quite well without it. It will function quite well without it again. It's a pity that conservatives aren't willing to defend their own ideology! I can't imagine a laborite coming out and admitting that socialism was flawed. Why do we have to work at convincing those who are supposed to be on our side.

What the heck does Federalism even stand for if it doesn't stand behind fiscal conservativism?

[Donerail]

Yes, you're destroying traditional marriage because you're eliminating the entire concept.

Much as we destroyed traditional marriage by allowing interracial marriage, yes, I'm aware.

Now, I'm happy to vote for others like yourself (see my first preference), on the grounds that we have a truce on these issues. You don't push the same Labor party line, we support you in the elections. Want to go to war over this, you'll happily lose folks like JCL and myself and our support. Forever. Not voting for you is less of a consequence then going against what our faith teaches.

The reason I'm not pushing these issues, and the reason there seems to be a truce on them, is because they are largely settled. There is no way that there is a majority in the Senate that will vote to change our current laws to the detriment of gay unions and a President that will sign such legislation for the foreseeable future. I don't talk about them because we've already won on the issue.

Far from it, you're legislating contrary to Christianity.

See below, but the civil unions we have in Atlasia in place of government-sanctioned marriage are a wholly civil and secular institution.

Do you believe it's discriminatory that marriage is limited to only one person?

The Economist has an excellent explanation of why polygamy is different. Though a short contributing argument that should be presented here: prohibiting polygamous marriage is placing a prohibition on conduct, while prohibiting gay marriage is discriminating based on biology. There are also a variety of legal issues.

So. Show me where Jesus blesses gay marriage. I don't see it. Personally, I think you're lying here. You don't really care what Christ has to say so long as it's in line with your social liberalism.

Prove me wrong. Show me how Jesus does indeed state that your believe is coherent with his teachings.

That's not my burden to prove, it's your own: I can provide no instances of Jesus condemning same-sex marriage or actions and cannot derive from the Gospel a Biblical prohibition of same-sex relationships.

Look: I don't want a culture war. But I will defend the rights of same-sex individuals.

[President Tyrion]

Far from it, you're legislating contrary to Christianity.

Why is that a problem, exactly?