The South will rise again.

[Former President tack50]

As I've said, the 2/3 overrule is meant for emergencies. So unless you can get Peebs to reverse her ruling before the next census or you sue her and win, it seems you are stuck in Fremont.

The law itself does not specify when the move becomes legal. Which is an oversight. Your assumption is that the post immediately become legal, but the law does not explicitly say that.

The law has had a cool-down period precisely for this reason. 

In that case then, you should sue (assuming Congress doesn't lift the restriction). Might make for a decent court case.

[Wisconsin+17]

In that case then, you should sue (assuming Congress doesn't lift the restriction). Might make for a decent court case.

I'd rather just see the law fixed, and this rather significant loophole closed. I'm not a senator. I would rather work with folks than sue them unnecessarily.

Given as the law does not specify a time period, it is within the power of the Senate to determine my residency.

[Wisconsin+17]

Can the ringleader of this poaching of Federalists to join the ACP explain which sort of ideological dividing lines you intend on having between yourselves and the Federalists? Lechasseur and TJ are obviously moderate on economics and fhtagn and PiT have some socially liberal views. So trying to call yourselves a pure "conservative" party isn't a valid claim. Not to mention that the ACP has no new thread and platform. So let's be open about the reasons why you're doing this.

Louisville Thunder, the response that I can give you at this time is that stuff is being put together as we speak. I realize that is not a satisfying answer but I will have a press conference in the next couple of days.

[Wisconsin+17]

Well to pick apart Barry Goldwater's quote from 1964:

While I agree that we should never moderate in the pursuit of justice, extremism has done far more to harm liberty than defend it.

Temperance, restraint and respect are not a vice and are essential to the defense of natural liberties as endowed in Article I of the Atlasian Constitution, whether that be gun rights, the right to trial by jury or free speech. The key foundation of this is that everyone has the same rights and those rights are respected.

We live in a world where even in the west we are seeing regular Islamic violence and terrorism directed towards Christians. It has become so commonplace that it has been accepted.

We live in a world where you can kill your child, legally at 39 weeks gestation. For free, paid by John Q Taxpayer.

We live in a world where a honorable and esteemed professor in Canada is barred from speaking on invitation to Cambridge University. Where another conservative is barred from Australia and New Zealand because his views are considered provocative.

We live in a world where a woman can be arrested for her facebook posts criticizing the above in England.

We live in a world where another woman can be arrested for using the wrong pronouns.

We live in a world where College students are expelled, for expressing the wrong opinions.

We live in a world where a priest stands in jail after being sentenced to a second trial after the first one failed to convict, and sits in solitary confinement.

All of this in the free world. Does this sound to you like 'moderation', Yankee?

The world is not what it was even 5 or 10 or 20 years ago. It has changed and not in the direction of greater civil freedoms. We are fighting for the very survival of these ideals, for western society.

You ask us what we stand for and we stand for freedom.

Where do you stand, sir?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well to pick apart Barry Goldwater's quote from 1964:

While I agree that we should never moderate in the pursuit of justice, extremism has done far more to harm liberty than defend it.

Temperance, restraint and respect are not a vice and are essential to the defense of natural liberties as endowed in Article I of the Atlasian Constitution, whether that be gun rights, the right to trial by jury or free speech. The key foundation of this is that everyone has the same rights and those rights are respected.

We live in a world where even in the west we are seeing regular Islamic violence and terrorism directed towards Christians. It has become so commonplace that it has been accepted.

I will never accept terrorism, and I think we should protect everyone from terrorism including yes Christians, but also Muslims and many other people as well who are victims of terror.

We live in a world where you can kill your child, legally at 39 weeks gestation. For free, paid by John Q Taxpayer.

Not in Atlasia, Most regions have bans around the 20 week mark. I think the South is at 20 weeks or so.

We live in a world where a honorable and esteemed professor in Canada is barred from speaking on invitation to Cambridge University. Where another conservative is barred from Australia and New Zealand because his views are considered provocative.

That is Canada and the UK, where they don't have a Bill of Rights that is enforced like we do here.

We live in a world where a woman can be arrested for her facebook posts criticizing the above in England.

Again our free speech clause of the Constitution here and in the RL US would protect her.

We live in a world where another woman can be arrested for using the wrong pronouns.

See above!

We live in a world where College students are expelled, for expressing the wrong opinions.

See above !

We live in a world where a priest stands in jail after being sentence to a second trial after the first one failed to convict, and sits in solitary confinement.

Where is this happening?

All of this in the free world. Does this sound to you like 'moderation', Yankee?

You misunderstood me. I said I agreed the moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. We should aggressive advance, defend and protect the entirety of Article I of our Constitution, which is the equivalent of the Bill of Rights in RL US. This would addressed 95% of the concerns you raised above. The other matter involves fighting terrorism, I am certainly in favor of fighting back against terrorism and weakening it in an effective manner.

The world is not what it was even 5 or 10 or 20 years ago. It has changed and not in the direction of greater civil freedoms. We are fighting for the very survival of these ideals, for western society.

You ask us what we stand for and we stand for freedom.

Where do you stand, sir?

What do I stand for?

I stand for the constitution, including the freedoms that it enshrines for everyone and the protections that guard against Government overreach, centralization of power and degredation of our natural god given rights, sir.

I stand for a market where people actually are empowred by having a free choice between competiting options, not subjected to the whims of gov't supported global monopolies, or gov't direct monopolies in the case of nationalized industries, sir.

I stand for a budget that is as close to balanced as practical so that we don't subvert our national interests, security and liberties to foreign creditors who care only about getting their money back, sir.

I stand for the belief that our gov't should act in the best interests of its constituents and make polices that benefit and strengthen those charges, not weaken them in the name of conflicts of interest, corruption, or other misplaced priorities, sir.

I stand for the protection of the unborn and policies that will work to minimize the need for abortions including both adoption services and also contraceptives, sir.

I stand for the right to keep and bear arms and that no one should be deprived of this right absent due process, sir. I certainly think Terrorists should be denied access to guns, getting back to your point above about killing of Christians, sir.

I stand for the respect of people to live their lives in dignity and peace without the gov't bashing in their door because arcane drug laws and asset forfeiture laws that have broken up more families than Hollywood social liberals could have ever dreamed and all in the name of protecting the kids from weed, sir.

I stand for a different trade approach that doesn't leave whole segments of the population to die on the beeches because of trade policies, that come along with nothing being done to help ease the burden on families, communities, schools and hospitals from lost tax base and jobs in local communities, sir. We need to preserve stability in these communities, sir.

I stand for a foreign policy that yes protects our people from terrorists but doesn't send people into harms way unless it is absolutely necessary, sir.

Lastly, I stand for treating people equally with respect and dignity and even if they don't agree with me 100% of the time, I can work on the things we do agree on to achieve advancements on all of the above issues and more, sir.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And I will be happy to tell you again just what I stand for any time you want me too and as many times as you want me to, Sir.

[Wisconsin+17]

I would vote for a party that stood for all those things. You could call it the Yankee Party!

The Problem has never been you. The Problem is what the Federalists have become. You might stand for all these things, but the Federalists do not and have not been standing for those things for a long time.

We had federalists scuttling an euthanasia bill that it was more important to allow people to kill themselves than to try protect vulnerable people from being killed by the state.

We have federalists putting forth bills to legalize cocaine and heroin.

We had federalists putting forth bills to change birth certificates to eliminate all references to men and women.

We had federalists rewriting federalist budgets to approve of more spending than the previous federalist budget had provided, including in funding that had previously been rejected.

And you wonder why many of us are tired of our beliefs taking a backseat to everything that has to be done, that is just too important.

There are bills coming to legalize prostitution, sponsored again by federalists. Same with gambling.

The list goes on and it is not short. We had federalists pushing bills permitting puberty blockers!

All on your watch as party leader.

A house divided on itself cannot stand, it either will become all one thing or all the other. We are tired of being pushed into a tiny cubbyhole and being told to vote for people who despise us and actively work to marginalize us.

And while a Yankee Party would be amazing, the Federalists are not the Yankee party, and that makes me very sad for both Yankee and the Federalists. 

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Fhtagn supported the prostitution thing, we were gonna go in together on a co-sponsored bill on this or something like that, lol

I would do the drugs thing again too

(though I am labor now so I guess this doesn't apply to me?)

[Wisconsin+17]

Yankee,

Join me, old friend, and we can rule atlasia together!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would vote for a party that stood for all those things. You could call it the Yankee Party!

The Problem has never been you. The Problem is what the Federalists have become. You might stand for all these things, but the Federalists do not and have not been standing for those things for a long time.

We had federalists scuttling an euthanasia bill that it was more important to allow people to kill themselves than to try protect vulnerable people from being killed by the state.

We have federalists putting forth bills to legalize cocaine and heroin.

We had federalists putting forth bills to change birth certificates to eliminate all references to men and women.

We had federalists rewriting federalist budgets to approve of more spending than the previous federalist budget had provided, including in funding that had previously been rejected.

And you wonder why many of us are tired of our beliefs taking a backseat to everything that has to be done, that is just too important.

There are bills coming to legalize prostitution, sponsored again by federalists. Same with gambling.

The list goes on and it is not short. We had federalists pushing bills permitting puberty blockers!

All on your watch as party leader.

A house divided on itself cannot stand, it either will become all one thing or all the other. We are tired of being pushed into a tiny cubbyhole and being told to vote for people who despise us and actively work to marginalize us.

And while a Yankee Party would be amazing, the Federalists are not the Yankee party, and that makes me very sad for both Yankee and the Federalists.  

MARGALINIZE YOU? I HAVE BEEN BEGGING YOU PEOPLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE FOR TEN GOD DAMN YEARS!!!!! Maybe not always you specifically, because you are the ASV of the far right. But ask Rfayette, how many times I helped him get elected to the House. Pushed him to get started campaigning earlier, encouraged him to recruit and find more conservatives to to help get him elected to the House and then run for office themselves later, because of his star power on the right. I have the PMs damn it! And not just him. JCL, TJ, Pingvin, the list goes on! Every election, most of my efforts have gone to helping the more conservative candidates we run turn out the vote, almost without fail. None of them can make this claim that you are making because it is false.

You know how many times I have faced this, "Nah don't wanna" and then six months later, "you used me" canard? Since 2009, it is the same bullsh**t that Hamilton used to justify forming the Populares/ARC. Only then it was Libertarians pulling it. Myself, the leadership, we have stood by our conservative candidates and worked our asses to get them reelected or to even get them to run in the first place.

Your recall was not because of your ideology, it was because you annoyed the hell out of people.

[Wisconsin+17]

MARGALINIZE YOU? I HAVE BEEN BEGGING YOU PEOPLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE FOR TEN GOD DAMN YEARS!!!!! Maybe not always you specifically, because you are the ASV of the far right.

You, yes. Party leadership, no. And for those of us in the South, we have dealt with party leadership and not you.

 We're bloody tired of being crapped on by the other 'leaders' of the party who make a career of being moderate heroes at our expense. They kill our bills by not showing up, while we were expected to always back them, vote for them and ensure they got their bills through.

I remember being screamed at by said moderate hero leadership for opposing their power grabs on the stance that rule of law should prevail.

You know as well as I that I have longstanding legitimate grievances with party leadership.

I have had many folks come in today and said that you have done many things for them. Many of them stayed in the Federalists for as long as they did because they admire and respect you.

I feel the same. Great leader in Yankee, sh**tty party. Big tents only work if leadership is balanced, and right now that's not the case with the Federalists. THe folks calling the shots, at least for the past several years have been said moderate heroes.

This split has been a long time in coming. The only reason it didn't happen earlier is because of all the work you've put in.

So let's have a true moderate hero party in the Federalists, and we will stand for what we believe.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

You honestly didn't seem to care in 2017, if anything you helped it by making that ACP a Satellite party.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As for the specific issues you raised, the Federalist Party has always had a strong libertarian tilt on many issues, owing to the fact that this is the internet. I also find it hilarious that you said you would vote for a party supporting the things I listed, which included a statement about the failure of the war on drugs and the negative impacts it has had on families, and yet one of the things you respond with condemning Federalists is for pushing to end the war on drugs.

We have always been pro-equality as part of our general philosophy of equality under the law and uniform application of the bill of rights to all people. This aspect was do in large part to the influence of none other than PiT in 2015 as well as back during the RPP. And it was this atmosphere of libertarianism, perceived moderation and greater degree of respect and tolerance compared to the RL right (as well as the fact that we don't breath down people's backs on conformity like Labor), that attracted Fhtagn to join us in the first place and during her time in office she supported many of the Libertarian positions you just decried above Ben Kenobi.

I understand and realize that people's views can evolve over time, but it takes a lot of willful suspension of disbelief to justify something on a set of grounds that one is complicit in creating yourself. PiT made the Atlasian Right tilt libertarian via the RPP, and pushed it back in that direction in 2015 as Fed Vice Chair. In fact, the contingent of so-cons in the RPP and many of the early Federalists who held those views were recruited by your arch nemsis Tmth or by his recruit Zuwo.

[Wisconsin+17]

Your recall was not because of your ideology, it was because you annoyed the hell out of people.

Open your eyes, Yankee. Look at that roll and tell me that that isn't an ideological divide. 30 Laborites plus the moderate hero leadership of the Federalists.

The same moderate hero leadership that has been pissing off other federalists in the party. And you wonder why they no longer feel comfortable in the party.

In real life had such a thing happened to the Republicans, such as a Republican senator filing impeachment and passing it with Democrats with the help of Rs and Moderates, that would destroy the party.

It would split into a division of Moderates and a division of Conservatives. Unless party leadership actively censored the ringleaders.

Did the Federalists do that? Or are those same moderate heroes in prominent party positions?

I know the answer to that and so do you.

[Wisconsin+17]

You honestly didn't seem to care in 2017, if anything you helped it by making that ACP a Satellite party.

Great question. All I can say to this is come to the press conference in a few days.

[Wisconsin+17]

As for the specific issues you raised, the Federalist Party has always had a strong libertarian tilt on many issues, owing to the fact that this is the internet. I also find it hilarious that you said you would vote for a party supporting the things I listed, which included a statement about the failure of the war on drugs and the negative impacts it has had on families, and yet one of the things you respond with condemning Federalists is for pushing to end the war on drugs.

I specifically said that I objected to the legalization of cocaine and heroin. I am not the only one who had significant issues with this policy. At the time or now, there were quite a few Federalists that were angry with this policy being pushed by their party.

We have always been pro-equality as part of our general philosophy of equality under the law and uniform application of the bill of rights to all people. This aspect was do in large part to the influence of none other than PiT in 2015 as well as back during the RPP.

As we have seen both in RL and here, that equality has morphed far beyond equality. You don't see the insanity of a state suing a cake decorator for choosing not to bake a cake? You cannot claim to be a libertarian and support suing businesses into oblivion for declining work contrary to their reputation. Christian businesses have a market and they need to be able to operate within their model without harassment. If there were a shortage of bakers I could see the argument, but the cases that have all been filed have been from plaintiffs who went out of their way to find specific businesses to target.

That ain't libertarianism. That is full on statism, using the full apparatus of the state to destroy 'dissenters'. How is that any different than what occurred at Salem?

that attracted Fhtagn to join us in the first place and during her time in office she supported many of the Libertarian positions you just decried above Ben Kenobi.

This has more relevance to you than me. Why would someone like this not feel comfortable in the Fed party? People and parties change, not always for the better. She liked the arrangement with the ACP at the time, and it actually worked quite well for everyone involved.

That setup failed because of one person that I have to point fingers at. Me.

I understand and realize that people's views can evolve over time, but it takes a lot of willful suspension of disbelief to justify something on a set of grounds that one is complicit in creating yourself. PiT made the Atlasian Right tilt libertarian via the RPP, and pushed it back in that direction in 2015 as Fed Vice Chair. In fact, the contingent of so-cons in the RPP and many of the early Federalists who held those views were recruited by your arch nemsis Tmth or by his recruit Zuwo.

Those are all questions you should be asking yourself, not me. If they wish to talk about it that will be up to them, not me. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

MARGALINIZE YOU? I HAVE BEEN BEGGING YOU PEOPLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE FOR TEN GOD DAMN YEARS!!!!! Maybe not always you specifically, because you are the ASV of the far right.

You, yes. Party leadership, no. And for those of us in the South, we have dealt with party leadership and not you.

 We're bloody tired of being crapped on by the other 'leaders' of the party who make a career of being moderate heroes at our expense. They kill our bills by not showing up, while we were expected to always back them, vote for them and ensure they got their bills through.

The only Party leadership that this party has had over the course of the last two years is myself, Fhtagn, Leinad, DFW and now Encke, all of which were elected by the Party. Go back another year and you can add PiT and JoMCar to the list.

I remember being screamed at by said moderate hero leadership for opposing their power grabs on the stance that rule of law should prevail.

You know as well as I that I have longstanding legitimate grievances with party leadership.

Office holders, are not Party leadership. We elect our leaders and then I appoint support staff as needed. Others who show promise as engaging in leadership activities, such as helping in elections etc, are thus made contenders for future leadership positions

I have had many folks come in today and said that you have done many things for them. Many of them stayed in the Federalists for as long as they did because they admire and respect you.

I feel the same. Great leader in Yankee, sh**tty party. Big tents only work if leadership is balanced, and right now that's not the case with the Federalists. THe folks calling the shots, at least for the past several years have been said moderate heroes.

What the hell are you talking about, Fhtagn and PiT were in the leadership! You cannot preserve a balance when one side insists on disengaging.

This split has been a long time in coming. The only reason it didn't happen earlier is because of all the work you've put in.

So let's have a true moderate hero party in the Federalists, and we will stand for what we believe.

Look I am not going to lose the party I have poured blood sweat and tears into because the people I begged to get more involved for the precise reason of stopping such such problems that had with it, only to have them decline and now come forward claiming they were marginalized or party is x, y, z and they don't like it. Where was the effort, involvement and interest then? People like ASV, or YT or whoever, achieve there outsized rolls because others don't engage. If we had mass engagement, like I have fought for and desired only to have it sucked away by discord and disinterest, concerns about them advancing views hostile to their own would not be as problematic. Because people would have seen and felt what had become the vast silent majority of Federalists, they wouldn't be silent.

I will not stand by and watch people straw man the Federalist Party and separate all of my actions from it and attach every action to such that they disagreed with and turn it into some diseased limb to be amputated.

For two god damn years I have put up the with the bullsh**t narratives and I am tired of it. I am tired of people putting words into my mouth, I am tired of people twisting non-conformity, that they themselves have benefited from into a crime against them. And I am tired of people saying we don't have a brand, or we need to get a brand.

Our brand is right on the tin, always has been. We want the Regions to be strengthened, empowered and a balanced federal government to protect them from centralized authority. That has been the standard unifying principle of the Atlasian right, since you guessed it, PiT and the gang revived the right on that basis. We advanced that agenda successfully in the Con-con, on healthcare, on education, on administration of Regional Senate seats and many, many other successes.

I am tired, so damn tired of people talking about bs memes all day on discord to the point where no one discusses issues anymore, which effects all the parties. If that weren't the case, this would not up for discussion as to whether or not we have a brand, but people don't talk nearly enough about it, except for me.

ACPers helped make the Federalist Party what it is today. Now ironically, I don't think you actually speak for PiT and Fhtagn in making these posts about what you hate about the Federalists. Because I doubt they would go as far as you have, frankly I think your issues are guided by your own personal dislike for certain people. Last I knew, Fhtagn was still friends with some of these people.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As for the specific issues you raised, the Federalist Party has always had a strong libertarian tilt on many issues, owing to the fact that this is the internet. I also find it hilarious that you said you would vote for a party supporting the things I listed, which included a statement about the failure of the war on drugs and the negative impacts it has had on families, and yet one of the things you respond with condemning Federalists is for pushing to end the war on drugs.

I specifically said that I objected to the legalization of cocaine and heroin. I am not the only one who had significant issues with this policy. At the time or now, there were quite a few Federalists that were angry with this policy being pushed by their party.

We have always been pro-equality as part of our general philosophy of equality under the law and uniform application of the bill of rights to all people. This aspect was do in large part to the influence of none other than PiT in 2015 as well as back during the RPP.

As we have seen both in RL and here, that equality has morphed far beyond equality. You don't see the insanity of a state suing a cake decorator for choosing not to bake a cake? You cannot claim to be a libertarian and support suing businesses into oblivion for declining work contrary to their reputation. Christian businesses have a market and they need to be able to operate within their model without harassment. If there were a shortage of bakers I could see the argument, but the cases that have all been filed have been from plaintiffs who went out of their way to find specific businesses to target.

That ain't libertarianism. That is full on statism, using the full apparatus of the state to destroy 'dissenters'. How is that any different than what occurred at Salem?

that attracted Fhtagn to join us in the first place and during her time in office she supported many of the Libertarian positions you just decried above Ben Kenobi.

This has more relevance to you than me. Why would someone like this not feel comfortable in the Fed party? People and parties change, not always for the better. She liked the arrangement with the ACP at the time, and it actually worked quite well for everyone involved.

That setup failed because of one person that I have to point fingers at. Me.

I understand and realize that people's views can evolve over time, but it takes a lot of willful suspension of disbelief to justify something on a set of grounds that one is complicit in creating yourself. PiT made the Atlasian Right tilt libertarian via the RPP, and pushed it back in that direction in 2015 as Fed Vice Chair. In fact, the contingent of so-cons in the RPP and many of the early Federalists who held those views were recruited by your arch nemsis Tmth or by his recruit Zuwo.

Those are all questions you should be asking yourself, not me. If they wish to talk about it that will be up to them, not me. 

You are the ones who posted these justifications for the outrage, not me. The inconsistency is stunning.

And you seem to be the only one interested in a dynamic conversation, the others just seem to spout talking points like they are customer service robots.

[Wisconsin+17]

The only Party leadership that this party has had over the course of the last two years is myself, Fhtagn, Leinad, DFW and now Encke, all of which were elected by the Party. Go back another year and you can add PiT and JoMCar to the list.

Encke, I have never dealt with personally, so my comments do not apply to him. Two of those are now laborites who have left the party and the other just did.

That *alone* speaks volumes.

Secondly, it should be pretty obvious who I am referring to in my comment as party 'leadership' the folks I had to deal with everyday in the South.

What the hell are you talking about, Fhtagn and PiT were in the leadership! You cannot preserve a balance when one side insists on disengaging.

The reason the ACP arrangement worked is that it actually fixed the party. It finally gave you what you needed was a tradcon wing. You haven't had that since. It allowed us to pick our own leader.
 

Look I am not going to lose the party I have poured blood sweat and tears into because the people I begged to get more involved for the precise reason of stopping such such problems that had with it, only to have them decline and now come forward claiming they were marginalized or party is x, y, z and they don't like it. Where was the effort, involvement and interest then?

If this is directed at me, life, mostly. School and work for the most part.

Because people would have seen and felt what had become the vast silent majority of Federalists, they wouldn't be silent.

Look at all this engagement when they get a party that is responsive to *their* needs. It's quite obvious to me, and I've been away that the interest was there they just weren't getting fed by the Feds. This is how parties form when they fit natural niches. A tradcon party fits that niche well.

Our brand is right on the tin, always has been. We want the Regions to be strengthened, empowered and a balanced federal government to protect them from centralized authority. That has been the standard unifying principle of the Atlasian right, since you guessed it, PiT and the gang revived the right on that basis. We advanced that agenda successfully in the Con-con, on healthcare, on education, on administration of Regional Senate seats and many, many other successes.

Most of which has been rolled back subsequently, some by the Federalists themselves. Two points here. "strengthening the regions" is not a significant policy paper. The stuff we have been working on is a significant policy paper, because it represents actual ideologies that you see in the world.

The Federalists are very similar to the Provincial Liberal party in British Columbia, a counter socialist alliance. It has similar issues that you are facing now regarding branding. It doesn't really stand for anything as a merger of two different parties and runs into issues when it starts to delve into ideologies which exposes these divisions. But it is essential as a merger of tradcons and business in order to stop the socialists. But we have a different voting system than here.

ACPers helped make the Federalist Party what it is today. Now ironically, I don't think you actually speak for PiT and Fhtagn in making these posts about what you hate about the Federalists. Because I doubt they would go as far as you have, frankly I think your issues are guided by your own personal dislike for certain people. Last I knew, Fhtagn was still friends with some of these people.

I haven't spoken for either of them and have specifically said that they can speak for themselves. But they do have issues with the Federalists. My issues touch on broader issues within the party. You are right that their issues are not as deep as mine, but you might want to consider DFW's observations.

Things are different now than before. It really is not about me at all.

[Wisconsin+17]

And you seem to be the only one interested in a dynamic conversation, the others just seem to spout talking points like they are customer service robots.

Consider both the source and motivations. You also get me because of availability, so consider that as well.

You are also an old friend and I feel obliged to do the best I can do to offer you an explanation. But you really should be listening to DFW more.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The only Party leadership that this party has had over the course of the last two years is myself, Fhtagn, Leinad, DFW and now Encke, all of which were elected by the Party. Go back another year and you can add PiT and JoMCar to the list.

Encke, I have never dealt with personally, so my comments do not apply to him. Two of those are now laborites who have left the party and the other just did.

That *alone* speaks volumes.

Secondly, it should be pretty obvious who I am referring to in my comment as party 'leadership' the folks I had to deal with everyday in the South.

Just because you hate someone, doesn't mean they are leadership. I know exactly who are you are referring to, and for a large part of early last year he was not even in the Party. Many ACPers have worked with and collaborated with him since his return, so this seems rather difficult to buy into.

What the hell are you talking about, Fhtagn and PiT were in the leadership! You cannot preserve a balance when one side insists on disengaging.

The reason the ACP arrangement worked is that it actually fixed the party. It finally gave you what you needed was a tradcon wing. You haven't had that since. It allowed us to pick our own leader.

We could have done that from within the Feds as well if people had stepped up and engaged in the caucus system instead of constantly ignoring it passively.
 

Look I am not going to lose the party I have poured blood sweat and tears into because the people I begged to get more involved for the precise reason of stopping such such problems that had with it, only to have them decline and now come forward claiming they were marginalized or party is x, y, z and they don't like it. Where was the effort, involvement and interest then?

If this is directed at me, life, mostly. School and work for the most part.

Yes, RL does come first, but it doesn't change the fact that said engagement could have happened within the Federalist Party a year ago, six months ago, a month ago, when I asked many people to do just that.

Because people would have seen and felt what had become the vast silent majority of Federalists, they wouldn't be silent.

Look at all this engagement when they get a party that is responsive to *their* needs. It's quite obvious to me, and I've been away that the interest was there they just weren't getting fed by the Feds. This is how parties form when they fit natural niches. A tradcon party fits that niche well.

This wasn't a supply issue, the Federalist Party extended many of these people a hand and they declined. For whatever reason they did, and if they had not, the Federalist Party wouldn't be so icky moderate hero or whatever the line is.

The Federalists are very similar to the Provincial Liberal party in British Columbia, a counter socialist alliance. It has similar issues that you are facing now regarding branding. It doesn't really stand for anything as a merger of two different parties and runs into issues when it starts to delve into ideologies which exposes these divisions. But it is essential as a merger of tradcons and business in order to stop the socialists. But we have a different voting system than here.

We don't advance the interests of business, we advance the free and competitive market. There is a difference, and the Federalist party has no desire to be an alliance of corporate fascists. We are an alliance of conservatives who favor a smaller federal gov't, free market competition, and the protection of life and liberty.

ACPers helped make the Federalist Party what it is today. Now ironically, I don't think you actually speak for PiT and Fhtagn in making these posts about what you hate about the Federalists. Because I doubt they would go as far as you have, frankly I think your issues are guided by your own personal dislike for certain people. Last I knew, Fhtagn was still friends with some of these people.

I haven't spoken for either of them and have specifically said that they can speak for themselves. But they do have issues with the Federalists. My issues touch on broader issues within the party. You are right that their issues are not as deep as mine, but you might want to consider DFW's observations.

Things are different now than before. It really is not about me at all.

Then why did you post a list of personal grievances then?  You justify the ACP on that basis, then say you are not in charge anymore, when faced with contradictions. This is recipe for the party sharing many of those same deficiencies considering that the same people who run ACP also had prominent roles in the Federalist Party and its leadership.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Making this its own post:

Our brand is right on the tin, always has been. We want the Regions to be strengthened, empowered and a balanced federal government to protect them from centralized authority. That has been the standard unifying principle of the Atlasian right, since you guessed it, PiT and the gang revived the right on that basis. We advanced that agenda successfully in the Con-con, on healthcare, on education, on administration of Regional Senate seats and many, many other successes.

Most of which has been rolled back subsequently, some by the Federalists themselves. Two points here. "strengthening the regions" is not a significant policy paper. The stuff we have been working on is a significant policy paper, because it represents actual ideologies that you see in the world.

State's rights doesn't exist in the real world? Constitutional Conservatism doesn't exist in the real word? Federalist Society doesn't exist in the real world? They most certainly do, but RL politics uses catch phrases and token statements to curry support, while this other stuff gets carried along for the ride. We respect our members and the voters of Atlasia far more than subject them to vapid, empty faux ideologies that dominate in RL politics, and those RL ideologies you talk about, actually do use and abuse conservatives on a rampant and repetitive basis. When is the last time the GOP successfully marketized an entitlement? We have done so, TWICE! When is the last time the GOP successfully returned education to the states. We voted for a bill by Peebs ironically, that did just that. And it was not a Fed who tried to water it down, it was Transit. And I fought like hell to stop it. When is the last time the GOP succeeded in reversing the tide of centralized power? We have on all of the issues I listed above. When has the GOP last successfully cut the deficit? We have been cutting the deficit over the course of the past year.


The real life conservative movement has been corrupted by special interests and that is why every time the GOP gets power, it falls flat on its behind at doing anything except cutting taxes. We have actually succeeded in accomplishing and implementing polices in line with our platform and yes our brand. The notion that you want the Atlasian right to look more like the real life right should send shock waves down the spine of any self respecting conservative who desires actual results instead of talking points, grand standing and martyrdom complexes that dominate the GOP Congressional delegation, and is the bulk of the reason why they lost the majority and thwarted their attempts to repeal Obamacare.

[Wisconsin+17]

We could have done that from within the Feds as well if people had stepped up and engaged in the caucus system instead of constantly ignoring it passively.

Well, I suppose as the other end of that I can comment freely on this now.

Satellite status had five advantages.

1. Bypassing the rest of Fed leadership entirely to deal with just you. Huge plus.

2. Greater policy independence. Another Huge plus. We could do a lot of cool stuff that caucus wouldn't let us do.

3. Sheltering Fed moderate heroes. 

4. Mentoring ACP caucus. More leadership opportunities and letting folks shine who would not get those opportunities in the Fed party.

5. What I call the 'penal colony' effect.

Caucus offered more org support from the Feds. It has it's positives too.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We could have done that from within the Feds as well if people had stepped up and engaged in the caucus system instead of constantly ignoring it passively.

Well, I suppose as the other end of that I can comment freely on this now.

Satellite status had five advantages.

1. Bypassing the rest of Fed leadership entirely to deal with just you. Huge plus.

2. Greater policy independence. Another Huge plus. We could do a lot of cool stuff that caucus wouldn't let us do.

3. Sheltering Fed moderate heroes. 

4. Mentoring ACP caucus. More leadership opportunities and letting folks shine who would not get those opportunities in the Fed party.

5. What I call the 'penal colony' effect.

Caucus offered more org support from the Feds. It has it's positives too.

1. Right because we have such a big leadership team.

2. Greater policy independence? The caucus system was designed to control the platform. omg

3. The number of moderate heroes is smaller than you seem to to think. And as for protection from controversial Feds? I helped reelect Fairbol back in as Governor and then got elected President two months later with a lot a number of crossover votes.

4. I let people who have responsibilities who showed interest and activity. The Federalist Party has never shut people out excluded them, the fact that people like Fhtagn became Vice Chair just months after being a Laborite, should illustrate that openness. It has always been about effort and interest, not ideology.

5. I don't look down upon conservatives to the point that they should feel the need to be in a penal colony. Nor should anyone else. What makes this game fun is the diversity of contesting opinions and the tendency to drive conservatives out of the discourse is something Federalists and yes our party as a whole has fought against for years. 

[Wisconsin+17]

Yes, RL does come first, but it doesn't change the fact that said engagement could have happened within the Federalist Party a year ago, six months ago, a month ago, when I asked many people to do just that.

Cannot speak for a year ago. Wasn't there for it. Six months ago to now would be trust issues. You don't KO the dude generally perceived as the biggest tradcon and expect to get other tradcons to step in.

Many ACPers have worked with and collaborated with him since his return, so this seems rather difficult to buy into.

Forget that. Taking the broader view. DFW is gone, and so is Leinad, and they have nothing to do with us. You have lost most of your leadership. Obviously the problems are greater than us.

Then why did you post a list of personal grievances then?  You justify the ACP on that basis, then say you are not in charge anymore, when faced with contradictions. This is recipe for the party sharing many of those same deficiencies considering that the same people who run ACP also had prominent roles in the Federalist Party and its leadership.

Why those grievances in particular? Because they touch on the broader issues within the party. The rest of this I would love to fully address now, but that will have to wait while we get everything put together over the next few days.