Nevermore shall we hear the plaintive call of 'Reluctant Nay'

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wrong. I stated explicitly what I wanted and my reluctance was because I hated the fact that I could not change the bill into that with the votes that were available. I wanted a system of market competing non-profits, not nationalization. The only way you can think that I was ambivalent on the free market requires that you ignore what I have stated publically then and subsequently. Nice try, Simmy, but it ain't happening.

I have never denied that I have some pro-labor sympathies, so does Hagrid ironically by the way or at least he did. So in that once sense don't expect much to change in terms of the Southern Senator.

I admit that I may have overlooked some of your proposals, but I do recall your proposal to replace the present electricity sector with a system of non-profit enterprises, which I thought was still very much a solution to a problem that did not exist, even if it was a (considerably) less harmful solution than what was being proposed. Regardless, it was to me a matter of principle- opposing the nationalisation of industries for the mere sake of nationalising them, as was the only real reason given for that bill, was something that had to be opposed and opposed uncompromisingly lest we start heading down such a path. You may have considered it to have had lower stakes, but- again as far as I was concerned- it was absolutely pivotal.

I never equivocated on opposing nationalization. I was reluctant to kill a bill that could have been altered in such a way to fix a very real problem namely that the power system is not a market, it is a monopoly at present.

Hamilton said the same thing half way through my first Senate term. I always separated my service in the Senate from leadership of the Party and I have never been an ideological hack. I also know full well what it means to be dirt poor and thus haven't been afraid to compromise on some economic issues where I know markets alone won't cut it.

This comes as a surprise to me; I would think it impossible to separate one's service in office to the image they were able to project as a partisan leader. You were the face of the Federalists by default, at least that's how I saw it. Hence why I was appalled by your remarks during the debate on the Fuel and Power bill: it created (or frankly, merely reinforced) the impression that the Federalists were not an effective opposition to the Administration.

I don't think it's a matter of being an ideologue or not being an ideologue- it's understanding what the basic principles of a party are and communicating that effectively. It's steering the course of events as to not allow an actual ideologue who just re-registered to nearly successfully primary a popular incumbent President. It's not putting a party into a position where it is compelled to nominate a candidate despite the majority of present members having voted not to nominate that candidate. I don't mean to berate you- I sincerely do have a great deal of respect for you and think that you have probably put in more and contributed more to Atlasia than anyone else over the years- but these were my concerns.

If I was ineffective at opposing the adminsitration it would not have been because of this, it was because at the time I had to walk a good distance to my neighbor's hours to just get on three or four times a week. But leaving that aside, let me state that the image I hope I have attained is one that does in fact represent a right of center party. Namely being pro-region, pro-market (preserving a monopoly is not pro-market just because it is privately owned ), and is willing to compromise when necessary.

I am not sure what role I had to play in the primary you are referring to. You were not here and thus may have missed the fact that I didn't take over the leadership of the Party until last February. I did wrongly give the impression to the Federalists (as I was the only communication link) that Duke was heavily leaning towards retirement, a sentiment he expressed multiple times over the course over November and December of 2013, but Maxwell and Tmth were chairman when that was set in motion and consolidation had split the party to the core.

It would have been my preference to get the bylaws amended months ago, but the opportunity just was not there to get the job done and only the platform was finished last summer. Thus stuck with the old ones, it is hardly fair to blame me for interpetting them as best as I could when even the "experts" could not agree on what they meant.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Wrong. I stated explicitly what I wanted and my reluctance was because I hated the fact that I could not change the bill into that with the votes that were available. I wanted a system of market competing non-profits, not nationalization. The only way you can think that I was ambivalent on the free market requires that you ignore what I have stated publically then and subsequently. Nice try, Simmy, but it ain't happening.

I have never denied that I have some pro-labor sympathies, so does Hagrid ironically by the way or at least he did. So in that once sense don't expect much to change in terms of the Southern Senator.

I admit that I may have overlooked some of your proposals, but I do recall your proposal to replace the present electricity sector with a system of non-profit enterprises, which I thought was still very much a solution to a problem that did not exist, even if it was a (considerably) less harmful solution than what was being proposed. Regardless, it was to me a matter of principle- opposing the nationalisation of industries for the mere sake of nationalising them, as was the only real reason given for that bill, was something that had to be opposed and opposed uncompromisingly lest we start heading down such a path. You may have considered it to have had lower stakes, but- again as far as I was concerned- it was absolutely pivotal.

Hamilton said the same thing half way through my first Senate term. I always separated my service in the Senate from leadership of the Party and I have never been an ideological hack. I also know full well what it means to be dirt poor and thus haven't been afraid to compromise on some economic issues where I know markets alone won't cut it.

This comes as a surprise to me; I would think it impossible to separate one's service in office to the image they were able to project as a partisan leader. You were the face of the Federalists by default, at least that's how I saw it. Hence why I was appalled by your remarks during the debate on the Fuel and Power bill: it created (or frankly, merely reinforced) the impression that the Federalists were not an effective opposition to the Administration.

I don't think it's a matter of being an ideologue or not being an ideologue- it's understanding what the basic principles of a party are and communicating that effectively. It's steering the course of events as to not allow an actual ideologue who just re-registered to nearly successfully primary a popular incumbent President. It's not putting a party into a position where it is compelled to nominate a candidate despite the majority of present members having voted not to nominate that candidate. I don't mean to berate you- I sincerely do have a great deal of respect for you and think that you have probably put in more and contributed more to Atlasia than anyone else over the years- but these were my concerns.

Simfan, I dont remember, for who have you voted this election?

Bore/BK, but I'm not sure why this is relevant. I voted for Bore not only because I thought he was the most qualified candidate, but that unlike JCL's loonyism and the de facto fellow traveller Dallasfan's record, Bore would do the most to advance- even if I really mean "be the least harmful to"- the ideas in which I believe.

I ran on a simple, non-loony message of fiscal conservatism, regional rights, and improving activity regarding foreign policy. What's loony about that.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Wrong. I stated explicitly what I wanted and my reluctance was because I hated the fact that I could not change the bill into that with the votes that were available. I wanted a system of market competing non-profits, not nationalization. The only way you can think that I was ambivalent on the free market requires that you ignore what I have stated publically then and subsequently. Nice try, Simmy, but it ain't happening.

I have never denied that I have some pro-labor sympathies, so does Hagrid ironically by the way or at least he did. So in that once sense don't expect much to change in terms of the Southern Senator.

I admit that I may have overlooked some of your proposals, but I do recall your proposal to replace the present electricity sector with a system of non-profit enterprises, which I thought was still very much a solution to a problem that did not exist, even if it was a (considerably) less harmful solution than what was being proposed. Regardless, it was to me a matter of principle- opposing the nationalisation of industries for the mere sake of nationalising them, as was the only real reason given for that bill, was something that had to be opposed and opposed uncompromisingly lest we start heading down such a path. You may have considered it to have had lower stakes, but- again as far as I was concerned- it was absolutely pivotal.

Hamilton said the same thing half way through my first Senate term. I always separated my service in the Senate from leadership of the Party and I have never been an ideological hack. I also know full well what it means to be dirt poor and thus haven't been afraid to compromise on some economic issues where I know markets alone won't cut it.

This comes as a surprise to me; I would think it impossible to separate one's service in office to the image they were able to project as a partisan leader. You were the face of the Federalists by default, at least that's how I saw it. Hence why I was appalled by your remarks during the debate on the Fuel and Power bill: it created (or frankly, merely reinforced) the impression that the Federalists were not an effective opposition to the Administration.

I don't think it's a matter of being an ideologue or not being an ideologue- it's understanding what the basic principles of a party are and communicating that effectively. It's steering the course of events as to not allow an actual ideologue who just re-registered to nearly successfully primary a popular incumbent President. It's not putting a party into a position where it is compelled to nominate a candidate despite the majority of present members having voted not to nominate that candidate. I don't mean to berate you- I sincerely do have a great deal of respect for you and think that you have probably put in more and contributed more to Atlasia than anyone else over the years- but these were my concerns.

Simfan, I dont remember, for who have you voted this election?

Bore/BK, but I'm not sure why this is relevant. I voted for Bore not only because I thought he was the most qualified candidate, but that unlike JCL's loonyism and the de facto fellow traveller Dallasfan's record, Bore would do the most to advance- even if I really mean "be the least harmful to"- the ideas in which I believe.

I ran on a simple, non-loony message of fiscal conservatism, regional rights, and improving activity regarding foreign policy. What's loony about that.

you.

[Adam Griffin]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

@ evergreen I challenge you to prove that.

[Simfan34]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

How many candidates are there that come from my "ideological background" in the first place?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So Simfan, how many choices do you have when you "select" your power provider?

[SWE]

And isn't that wonderful news?

Is this about Yankee? If so, you are a terrible person.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As people have also conveniently forgotten, I also would more often then not vote against tabling bills because I was reluctant to see a bad bill with good potential go to waste. A bill is a vehicle and the time spent on it is a resource, and thus if you spend weeks or even months on that bill, to then throw that in the garbage seemed rather wastefull, always did to me.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

@ evergreen I challenge you to prove that.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=6339;sa=showPosts

[Adam Griffin]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

How many candidates are there that come from my "ideological background" in the first place?

You can dress it up in nuance all you like, but you're a right-winger: there are plenty.

[Associate Justice PiT]

And isn't that wonderful news?

Is this about Yankee? If so, you are a terrible person.

I would not say so. As conservatives, we needed someone, at that critical juncture, to stand up for the basic principles of free enterprise, the market economy, and pure fiscal sanity. For him to have signalled "reluctance" in opposing the ludicrous piece of legislation that was the Fuel and Power Act was tantamount to saying that his support of those principles was equally ambivalent.

I have have long had great respect for Yankee and his service, and I thank him for it, but the fact is that it had simply become too milquetoast, both in the Senate and as leader of the Federalists, who now are, and I don't think anyone would deny this, interminably moribund. Regardless, I doubt we will see anyone who will come close to his political longevity- and he managed to survive Operation Cottonfield, mind you- any time soon, if ever. I wish him the best.

     I wonder who the longest-tenured current officeholder is now. Yankee held that distinction by a huge margin. Before him it was Dibble, and before Dibble it was opebo.

[Talleyrand]

And isn't that wonderful news?

Is this about Yankee? If so, you are a terrible person.

I would not say so. As conservatives, we needed someone, at that critical juncture, to stand up for the basic principles of free enterprise, the market economy, and pure fiscal sanity. For him to have signalled "reluctance" in opposing the ludicrous piece of legislation that was the Fuel and Power Act was tantamount to saying that his support of those principles was equally ambivalent.

I have have long had great respect for Yankee and his service, and I thank him for it, but the fact is that it had simply become too milquetoast, both in the Senate and as leader of the Federalists, who now are, and I don't think anyone would deny this, interminably moribund. Regardless, I doubt we will see anyone who will come close to his political longevity- and he managed to survive Operation Cottonfield, mind you- any time soon, if ever. I wish him the best.

     I wonder who the longest-tenured current officeholder is now. Yankee held that distinction by a huge margin. Before him it was Dibble, and before Dibble it was opebo.

I think it's Homelycooking followed by Bgwah.

[Associate Justice PiT]

And isn't that wonderful news?

Is this about Yankee? If so, you are a terrible person.

I would not say so. As conservatives, we needed someone, at that critical juncture, to stand up for the basic principles of free enterprise, the market economy, and pure fiscal sanity. For him to have signalled "reluctance" in opposing the ludicrous piece of legislation that was the Fuel and Power Act was tantamount to saying that his support of those principles was equally ambivalent.

I have have long had great respect for Yankee and his service, and I thank him for it, but the fact is that it had simply become too milquetoast, both in the Senate and as leader of the Federalists, who now are, and I don't think anyone would deny this, interminably moribund. Regardless, I doubt we will see anyone who will come close to his political longevity- and he managed to survive Operation Cottonfield, mind you- any time soon, if ever. I wish him the best.

     I wonder who the longest-tenured current officeholder is now. Yankee held that distinction by a huge margin. Before him it was Dibble, and before Dibble it was opebo.

I think it's Homelycooking followed by Bgwah.

     I would have guessed Bgwah, but hats off to homelycooking. For a cabinet member to hold that distinction is damn impressive.

[Simfan34]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

How many candidates are there that come from my "ideological background" in the first place?

You can dress it up in nuance all you like, but you're a right-winger: there are plenty.

Of course I'm a right-winger. That doesn't oblige me to vote for JCL.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

How many candidates are there that come from my "ideological background" in the first place?

You can dress it up in nuance all you like, but you're a right-winger: there are plenty.

Of course I'm a right-winger. That doesn't obligate me to vote for JCL.

Would've loved to had you're vote though. But we can still help each other from our differing position Governor SimFan.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So Simfan, how many choices do you have when you "select" your power provider?

Well?

[Adam Griffin]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

How many candidates are there that come from my "ideological background" in the first place?

You can dress it up in nuance all you like, but you're a right-winger: there are plenty.

Of course I'm a right-winger. That doesn't obligate me to vote for JCL.

Uh, in this game and in this dynamic, it kind of does. Of course, that's the true problem with the Right in terms of internal structure and order. It's not Yankee that's the problem with respect to how he votes in the Senate: it's individuals such as yourself that comprise the half-dozen special snowflake factions among the Right that all feel entitled to unique treatment and platforms, or else they take their ball and go home. I remember the far left having this problem a couple of years ago, until my glorious reign bashed some skulls and ended most of that (no one can ever truly please the softcocks nor the purist of loons, unfortunately).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So Simfan, how many choices do you have when you "select" your power provider?

Well?

Anyone who pays utility bills in New York State can choose to buy from an "energy service company" rather than their local utility, so Simfan's landlord most likely has several choices. Customer-sited distributed energy generation is also rapidly growing in importance here, as it is in most of the country.

When I lived in New York that wasn't the case. We are not provided the same type of competition down here. Hence why I wanted a system of market competing energy co-ops, and idea that has support from even some on the right in this state, at least in terms of organizations supporting it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

How many candidates are there that come from my "ideological background" in the first place?

You can dress it up in nuance all you like, but you're a right-winger: there are plenty.

Of course I'm a right-winger. That doesn't obligate me to vote for JCL.

Uh, in this game and in this dynamic, it kind of does. Of course, that's the true problem with the Right in terms of internal structure and order. It's not Yankee that's the problem with respect to how he votes in the Senate: it's individuals such as yourself that comprise the half-dozen special snowflake factions among the Right that all feel entitled to unique treatment and platforms, or else they take their ball and go home. I remember the far left having this problem a couple of years ago, until my glorious reign bashed some skulls and ended most of that (no one can ever truly please the softcocks nor the purist of loons, unfortunately).

I'm sure that most voters on the left would have just as much trouble voting for someone comparable to JCL from their own side of the aisle. There isn't one, though, because JCL is sui generis. This is someone who managed to serve through an entire session of the Senate while remaining completely oblivious to its rules. Of course, with better organization, the Federalists might have found  a more competent candidate - not necessarily a less radical one, but someone who is, errr, more with it - to run in the first place.

     Any issues that most people have with JCL (not necessarily yourself) pertain to his views, as these issues well predate his stint in the Senate. In terms of somebody's ideological views, there is most definitely a high-profile member of the Labor Party who is analogous to him. Yes, this person has enjoyed significant electoral success, unlike JCL.

[Maxwell]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

How many candidates are there that come from my "ideological background" in the first place?

You can dress it up in nuance all you like, but you're a right-winger: there are plenty.

Of course I'm a right-winger. That doesn't obligate me to vote for JCL.

Uh, in this game and in this dynamic, it kind of does. Of course, that's the true problem with the Right in terms of internal structure and order. It's not Yankee that's the problem with respect to how he votes in the Senate: it's individuals such as yourself that comprise the half-dozen special snowflake factions among the Right that all feel entitled to unique treatment and platforms, or else they take their ball and go home. I remember the far left having this problem a couple of years ago, until my glorious reign bashed some skulls and ended most of that (no one can ever truly please the softcocks nor the purist of loons, unfortunately).

I'm sure that most voters on the left would have just as much trouble voting for someone comparable to JCL from their own side of the aisle. There isn't one, though, because JCL is sui generis. This is someone who managed to serve through an entire session of the Senate while remaining completely oblivious to its rules. Of course, with better organization, the Federalists might have found  a more competent candidate - not necessarily a less radical one, but someone who is, errr, more with it - to run in the first place.

     Any issues that most people have with JCL (not necessarily yourself) pertain to his views, as these issues well predate his stint in the Senate. In terms of somebody's ideological views, there is most definitely a high-profile member of the Labor Party who is analogous to him. Yes, this person has enjoyed significant electoral success, unlike JCL.

I feel like if this person had put themselves out as well as JCL has, I don't think they would enjoy nearly the success they have. The fact is JCL had a chance to govern, and chose to embrace something I suspect he knew would not pass, and that's all.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

How many candidates are there that come from my "ideological background" in the first place?

You can dress it up in nuance all you like, but you're a right-winger: there are plenty.

Of course I'm a right-winger. That doesn't obligate me to vote for JCL.

Uh, in this game and in this dynamic, it kind of does. Of course, that's the true problem with the Right in terms of internal structure and order. It's not Yankee that's the problem with respect to how he votes in the Senate: it's individuals such as yourself that comprise the half-dozen special snowflake factions among the Right that all feel entitled to unique treatment and platforms, or else they take their ball and go home. I remember the far left having this problem a couple of years ago, until my glorious reign bashed some skulls and ended most of that (no one can ever truly please the softcocks nor the purist of loons, unfortunately).

I'm sure that most voters on the left would have just as much trouble voting for someone comparable to JCL from their own side of the aisle. There isn't one, though, because JCL is sui generis. This is someone who managed to serve through an entire session of the Senate while remaining completely oblivious to its rules. Of course, with better organization, the Federalists might have found  a more competent candidate - not necessarily a less radical one, but someone who is, errr, more with it - to run in the first place.

     Any issues that most people have with JCL (not necessarily yourself) pertain to his views, as these issues well predate his stint in the Senate. In terms of somebody's ideological views, there is most definitely a high-profile member of the Labor Party who is analogous to him. Yes, this person has enjoyed significant electoral success, unlike JCL.

I feel like if this person had put themselves out as well as JCL has, I don't think they would enjoy nearly the success they have. The fact is JCL had a chance to govern, and chose to embrace something I suspect he knew would not pass, and that's all.

     JCL was lucky to even have an opportunity to hold federal office. This other person gained office fairly easily. While we can discuss how well each of them did once there, I think it is important to note the difference in electoral success between them, going back to Nix's claim that a left-wing JCL would not fare well with the Labor base.

[Adam Griffin]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

How many candidates are there that come from my "ideological background" in the first place?

You can dress it up in nuance all you like, but you're a right-winger: there are plenty.

Of course I'm a right-winger. That doesn't obligate me to vote for JCL.

Uh, in this game and in this dynamic, it kind of does. Of course, that's the true problem with the Right in terms of internal structure and order. It's not Yankee that's the problem with respect to how he votes in the Senate: it's individuals such as yourself that comprise the half-dozen special snowflake factions among the Right that all feel entitled to unique treatment and platforms, or else they take their ball and go home. I remember the far left having this problem a couple of years ago, until my glorious reign bashed some skulls and ended most of that (no one can ever truly please the softcocks nor the purist of loons, unfortunately).

I'm sure that most voters on the left would have just as much trouble voting for someone comparable to JCL from their own side of the aisle. There isn't one, though, because JCL is sui generis. This is someone who managed to serve through an entire session of the Senate while remaining completely oblivious to its rules. Of course, with better organization, the Federalists might have found  a more competent candidate - not necessarily a less radical one, but someone who is, errr, more with it - to run in the first place.

     Any issues that most people have with JCL (not necessarily yourself) pertain to his views, as these issues well predate his stint in the Senate. In terms of somebody's ideological views, there is most definitely a high-profile member of the Labor Party who is analogous to him. Yes, this person has enjoyed significant electoral success, unlike JCL.

I feel like if this person had put themselves out as well as JCL has, I don't think they would enjoy nearly the success they have. The fact is JCL had a chance to govern, and chose to embrace something I suspect he knew would not pass, and that's all.

     JCL was lucky to even have an opportunity to hold federal office. This other person gained office fairly easily. While we can discuss how well each of them did once there, I think it is important to note the difference in electoral success between them, going back to Nix's claim that a left-wing JCL would not fare well with the Labor base.

JCL by and large has never struck me as someone who should be as controversial as he is on this board. He's relatively well-mannered and while may be a goofball at times, he expresses his (potentially offensive) views in a non-offensive fashion, at the very least. It's arguable that whomever you're referring to is actually positioned further to the left than JCL is to the right, and arguably much more vocal and aggressive in his behavior. I (at least think?) I agree with PiT in that JCL equivalents on our side do not find it as difficult to gain electoral traction within our ranks, in part because we as a force usually stick together, and the elements among us that choose not to are either those who use the brand for personal gain or those who haven't accepted the brand for what it is at its core (which is a close-knit group that sticks together no matter what).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is really going to disappear is the color coded voting and Scott's style for designing legislation.

Also, these:

[Gustaf]

And isn't that wonderful news?

Is this about Yankee? If so, you are a terrible person.

did you four get lost on your way to the gråtrunka convention?

Haven't seen that word in a while!