The South will rise again.

[Wisconsin+17]

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

I'll put quotes around 'leader'. Not having to ever deal with said 'leader' was worth the price of admission. It's like when you have that one middle manager in the org chart, it ain't the numbers, it's the personnel. 

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

Yep, also removing the influence of certain 'leaders' into our policy decisions and not having to defend their crap was amazeballs. I had a lot of fun with that.

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.

At the time it helped a couple of moderate heroes big time in the southern elections..

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.

This was just before that. She was not chair then. Perhaps if you extended an offer for caucus chair to me we would not be having this discussion now about lack of tradcon representation.

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.

You might not, but there were some outcasts that were tired of dealing with the Feds that I ended up taking in. They were happier, and I think the Feds were happier.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

We didn't KO the biggest Tradcon. The biggest "traditionalist conservative" in this game is myself. I don't consider you a tradcon at all, because you supported Ted Cruz and opposed Trump. I have never seen you even use that term before now.

And you weren't KOed because you were a trad con, you were recalled because of your behavior and low activity.

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.

I wasn't talking about Leinad and DFW, Ben.

Most every former Federalist Leader has become a lefty. The only thing different here, is they have become more conservative, but the result is the same. This trend goes back to 2013 with Hagrid and Maxwell. Only myself, and Tmth have remained relatively constant in our views.  This isn't because of us as a party, but in most circumstances such as Hagrid adn Maxwell, because the demographics on this site are among an age cohort where ideology is still in flux.

[Wisconsin+17]

We didn't KO the biggest Tradcon. The biggest "traditionalist conservative" in this game is myself. I don't consider you a tradcon at all, because you supported Ted Cruz and opposed Trump. I have never seen you even use that term before now.

You've never been a tradcon. You've always been more in the libertarian/centrist wing. Some of your views are in variance with a traditional conservative re homosexual marriage.

I personally prefer socon for myself. Trump also isn't a tradcon. Cruz/Santorum would be traditional conservatives.

And you weren't KOed because you were a trad con, you were recalled because of your behavior and low activity.

That might be how you saw it, but that's not how we saw it.  

This trend goes back to 2013 with Hagrid and Maxwell. Only myself, and Tmth have remained relatively constant in our views.  This isn't because of us as a party, but in most circumstances such as Hagrid adn Maxwell, because the demographics on this site are among an age cohort where ideology is still in flux.

If you are looking for answers to THIS question, start here my friend.

[Wisconsin+17]

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.

Agreed, as have some of the things we have done in the south. It's not in your actual platform, though, or at least it wasn't unless things have changed over the last while. From what I recall you would keep the platform as open as possible to accommodate a few folks. Which is understandable, but doesn't let you do policy papers per se.

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.

Again, I don't want to pre-empt what we have coming. You'll see what we're doing soon enough. I suspect you will be pleased.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We didn't KO the biggest Tradcon. The biggest "traditionalist conservative" in this game is myself. I don't consider you a tradcon at all, because you supported Ted Cruz and opposed Trump. I have never seen you even use that term before now.

You've never been a tradcon. You've always been more in the libertarian/centrist wing. Some of your views are in variance with a traditional conservative re homosexual marriage.

I personally prefer socon for myself. Trump also isn't a tradcon. Cruz/Santorum would be traditional conservatives.

Traditionalist conservatism, also known as classical conservatism and traditional conservatism, is a philosophy emphasizing the need for the principles of a transcendent moral order, manifested through certain natural laws to which society ought to conform in a prudent manner.[1] Shortened to traditionalism and in the United Kingdom and Canada referred to as Toryism, traditionalist conservatism is a variant of conservatism based on the political philosophies of Aristotle and Edmund Burke.[1] Traditionalists emphasize the bonds of social order and the defense of ancestral institutions over hyper-individualism.[1]

I am very great fan of Edmund Burke, have repeatedly criticized hyper individualism as recently as the smoking debate in the Fremont region. I believe firmly in natural rights and the belief that they are given by god, not by the state. I have criticized the destruction of traditional economic structures that have sustained and supported the family and have emphasized the importance of shifting our economic policies to preserve societal stability, rather than pursue textbook neo-liberal dogma. I have some socially libertarian views, but many of them are guided by an analysis of the results such as the war on drugs where the end result has been destructive of the family, not helpful towards. I hate drugs, but taking fathers out of homes because of a little weed, doesn't make for a stable society.  Burke was a realist and he questioned authority at times when it was corrupt or not achieving the desired results. Burke was also a former Whig who crafted from whole cloth a form of Conservatism that embraced enlightenment ideals while rejecting the chaos, extremism and radicalism of the French Revolution.

You on the other hand have a long history and even in this thread of endorsing hook line and sinker the economic philosophy of the real life American Conservative movement, which is not traditionalist conservative, it is neoliberal. You also endorsed the war on drugs, which has had such horrendous impacts on the family.

You are right though Trump is not a traditionalist conservative, but the dividing lines between Trump and Cruz in the primary, was one of an economic approach structured around traditional conservativism (ie preserving the stability of the family and community), versus the movement conservative approach that favors hyper individuals economically and rejects it socially and wonders why they act at cross purposes all the time. Trump even said in a debate, that his definition of conservativism was to "conserve, to conserve your family, your job, your community and your way of life". In the same debate Rubio and Cruz peddled the same talking points the GOP has for years on the same question, which is in effect an endorsement of neoliberal economics.

Hating gay people doesn't make you a traditional conservative, many real life Republicans do that that I would never grant them the title of traditional conservatism to. It does make you a social conservative, which as you said you prefer. Please then don't appropriate terms in that case.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

Agreed, as have some of the things we have done in the south. It's not in your actual platform, though, or at least it wasn't unless things have changed over the last while. From what I recall you would keep the platform as open as possible to accommodate a few folks. Which is understandable, but doesn't let you do policy papers per se.

This is our platform:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=237285.msg5132879#msg5132879

It has been since 2017.

Policy papers? You want policy papers? I would be fine with policy papers, at several times we have had such. The lack of such has been because of the generalized lack of engagement on issues, which again effects all parties in this game and connects with the rise of Mibbit/Discord.

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.

Again, I don't want to pre-empt what we have coming. You'll see what we're doing soon enough. I suspect you will be pleased.

So far, nothing about this process has been pleasing, or anything other than an excruciatingly painful case of torture that is exceeding the pain I experienced from dealing with the #Atlasforum nutcases, and I doubt that will change.

If guys are trying to kill me, you are doing a magnificent job.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This trend goes back to 2013 with Hagrid and Maxwell. Only myself, and Tmth have remained relatively constant in our views.  This isn't because of us as a party, but in most circumstances such as Hagrid adn Maxwell, because the demographics on this site are among an age cohort where ideology is still in flux.

If you are looking for answers to THIS question, start here my friend.

There wasn't a question in that Ben. That was a historical statement of fact. Millennial and Gen Z conservatives have a tendency to become lefties. This is not just an Atlas phenomenon. A good example of this would be Jonathan Krohn who appeared at CPAC in 2009, was a devotee of Bill Bennett and by 2012 was voting for Obama.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And you weren't KOed because you were a trad con, you were recalled because of your behavior and low activity.

You see folks, this is what is called a martyrdom complex. It is when you deflect responsibility for your actions and behavior and blame it one's group being mistreated. The aim is to politicize something and to preclude punishment for actions, or seek and achieve revenge for such penalties being taken even when such is appropriate.

You know who has the biggest record of engaging in this behavior? LABOR!!! They did it with the court, they did with activity based expulsion and they did it with the Lumine/Zuwo era prosecutions for treason.

As you can see, I stand by an defend my people when attacked unfairly. But I will never condone justifying or excusing responsibility for actions on the basis of ideology.

We are smarter and better than being subjected to the same level of insanity that has paralyzed real life politics.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also to clarify one more point that could easily be miscontrued:

I wouldn't consider all or most Trumpists to be traditionalist conservatives, but I would certainly consider Trumpism the net result of the establishment failing to preserve societal stability.
The main point is that in the primary Trump tapped into that vacuum, while the rest of the field continued to operate the same way the GOP has for decades.

[Former President tack50]

Also to clarify one more point that could easily be miscontrued:

I wouldn't consider all or most Trumpists to be traditionalist conservatives, but I would certainly consider Trumpism the net result of the establishment failing to preserve societal stability.
The main point is that in the primary Trump tapped into that vacuum, while the rest of the field continued to operate the same way the GOP has for decades.

Wait, how was societal stability falling before 2016?

Also, staying closer to the game, both trying to influence a party as an officeholder and forming a new one are fine strategies. If for some reason Ben felt the Feds weren't conservative enough, that's fine. Of course, we must wait to see what the ACP's platform will actually be like.

I do agree with you that if there were grievances with the party they should have been discussed (whether in public or in some party lobby, that's for you to decide) instead of making an split out of nowhere. Though splits do tend to be out of nowhere in my limited experience

Anyways, this is my opinion from the other side of the aisle, good luck to you both!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also to clarify one more point that could easily be miscontrued:

I wouldn't consider all or most Trumpists to be traditionalist conservatives, but I would certainly consider Trumpism the net result of the establishment failing to preserve societal stability.
The main point is that in the primary Trump tapped into that vacuum, while the rest of the field continued to operate the same way the GOP has for decades.

Wait, how was societal stability falling before 2016?

On this issue, trade and the impacts on rural and manufacturing communities.

Also, staying closer to the game, both trying to influence a party as an officeholder and forming a new one are fine strategies. If for some reason Ben felt the Feds weren't conservative enough, that's fine. Of course, we must wait to see what the ACP's platform will actually be like.

I do agree with you that if there were grievances with the party they should have been discussed (whether in public or in some party lobby, that's for you to decide) instead of making an split out of nowhere. Though splits do tend to be out of nowhere in my limited experience

Anyways, this is my opinion from the other side of the aisle, good luck to you both!

Many of the concerns discussed prior to this involved me somehow removing an undesired person from the party. This is beyond my power to achieve, nor is it a power that I necessarily want. The solution in that case was to run in elections and win the primaries, not demand I do something I cannot.

In one of the cases, said person actually left for a long time and said person's return was met with in some instances cooperation and support from some of the people who had been desiring his removal previously.

The most recent example of such though is ASV and I guess brug. But again we don't lynch people in this party. If you disagree with them the answer is to challenge in a primary and beat them. Our party was built on a degree of tolerance and respect that others party's especially labor lacked in the past, and many of the same people who took advantage of that in the past now want to deny it to others and that isn't fair.

I have many issues with what ASV has done and is doing, I have expressed those several times. But I generally get the sense that there is a desire to sacrifice my party at the alter because I failed to do something that it is beyond my power to achieve and that is make someone disappear and every few months that targeted person seems to change. Rather arbitrary I must say.

As for the case that Ben keeps using to challenge this fact, I would point out that under my leadership he has not been expelled from this party, like happened under Hagrid. He has likewise benefited from this policy. What did happen was a bipartisan group of people pushed and succeeded in recalling him from office, and while he keeps claiming that a Federalist sponsored this push, as I recall it was Progressive Realist or someone else who took the lead and then Federalists in the region jumped on board.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Also to clarify one more point that could easily be miscontrued:

I wouldn't consider all or most Trumpists to be traditionalist conservatives, but I would certainly consider Trumpism the net result of the establishment failing to preserve societal stability.
The main point is that in the primary Trump tapped into that vacuum, while the rest of the field continued to operate the same way the GOP has for decades.

Wait, how was societal stability falling before 2016?

On this issue, trade and the impacts on rural and manufacturing communities.

I agree on that. I can't tell you how many condescending Facebook posts advocating for Hillary I read from acquaintances the day before/of the election with the same "those jobs aren't coming back. Go to college" message to all the 50+ year old laid off factory workers who lack a GED.

"Those jobs aren't coming back " was the OG "Learn to code".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also to clarify one more point that could easily be miscontrued:

I wouldn't consider all or most Trumpists to be traditionalist conservatives, but I would certainly consider Trumpism the net result of the establishment failing to preserve societal stability.
The main point is that in the primary Trump tapped into that vacuum, while the rest of the field continued to operate the same way the GOP has for decades.

Wait, how was societal stability falling before 2016?

On this issue, trade and the impacts on rural and manufacturing communities.

I agree on that. I can't tell you how many condescending Facebook posts advocating for Hillary I read from acquaintances the day before/of the election with the same "those jobs aren't coming back. Go to college" message to all the 50+ year old laid off factory workers who lack a GED.

"Those jobs aren't coming back " was the OG "Learn to code".

Yea and that is why former mining and manufacturing areas trended heavily to Trump. Not because he necessarily would fix the problem, but he wasn't the one who caused it.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I agree on that. I can't tell you how many condescending Facebook posts advocating for Hillary I read from acquaintances the day before/of the election with the same "those jobs aren't coming back. Go to college" message to all the 50+ year old laid off factory workers who lack a GED.

"Those jobs aren't coming back " was the OG "Learn to code".

These 50 year old men loved school so much that they barely passed high school three decades ago. I’m positive that driving a truck for 30 years has reinvigorated their love of learning so much that they’ll go back to school and learn how to code.

[Wisconsin+17]

[

As for the case that Ben keeps using to challenge this fact, I would point out that under my leadership he has not been expelled from this party, like happened under Hagrid. He has likewise benefited from this policy. What did happen was a bipartisan group of people pushed and succeeded in recalling him from office, and while he keeps claiming that a Federalist sponsored this push, as I recall it was Progressive Realist or someone else who took the lead and then Federalists in the region jumped on board.

The very fact that I have already been expelled from the Federalist party long ago by Hagrid and recalled, also led by other Federalists should be evidence enough for a reason for me to leave the party. The only remarkable thing in all this is not that I would leave, but that I would come back. Any objective observer would look at this and only conclude that there were significant and longstanding issues, issues that have not been resolved between me and certain prominent Federalists.

That you characterize the effort as bipartisan just further underscores my point of lack of support.

[Wisconsin+17]

There wasn't a question in that Ben. That was a historical statement of fact. Millennial and Gen Z conservatives have a tendency to become lefties. This is not just an Atlas phenomenon. A good example of this would be Jonathan Krohn who appeared at CPAC in 2009, was a devotee of Bill Bennett and by 2012 was voting for Obama.

I was rather oblique, but the answer you are seeking to the bigger question as to why this is happening is here. Shifts go both ways.

[Wisconsin+17]

Hating gay people doesn't make you a traditional conservative, many real life Republicans do that that I would never grant them the title of traditional conservatism to. It does make you a social conservative, which as you said you prefer. Please then don't appropriate terms in that case.

You might want to ask Edmund Burke what he thought about homosexuality and whether he thought it was in accordance with traditionalist conservative values. Your support of social liberal values makes you a libertarian/centrist. Trad cons do not like drugs, because they impair functioning. Trad cons do not like homosexuality because it is contrary to the natural law per Aquinas.

Natural Law is, as you have said, rights given to us by God, but to argue such a thing you are arguing that God exists and that we are bound by His laws. Among which states that homosexuality is sinful.

You on the other hand have a long history and even in this thread of endorsing hook line and sinker the economic philosophy of the real life American Conservative movement, which is not traditionalist conservative, it is neoliberal.

I am an Austrian like Mises. I support the gold standard. The current Republican consensus save Rand and maybe Cruz and a few others are all devotees of Keynes. I would agree with you that it would be neoliberal if I supported Keynes, but I do not and have never supported him.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

[

As for the case that Ben keeps using to challenge this fact, I would point out that under my leadership he has not been expelled from this party, like happened under Hagrid. He has likewise benefited from this policy. What did happen was a bipartisan group of people pushed and succeeded in recalling him from office, and while he keeps claiming that a Federalist sponsored this push, as I recall it was Progressive Realist or someone else who took the lead and then Federalists in the region jumped on board.

The very fact that I have already been expelled from the Federalist party long ago by Hagrid and recalled, also led by other Federalists should be evidence enough for a reason for me to leave the party. The only remarkable thing in all this is not that I would leave, but that I would come back. Any objective observer would look at this and only conclude that there were significant and longstanding issues, issues that have not been resolved between me and certain prominent Federalists.

That you characterize the effort as bipartisan just further underscores my point of lack of support.

The people who pushed your expulsion in 2013, left the party in 2014. The problems you have had since have come from antagonistic relationships you have created since you returned in 2016. As I recall, it was tmth himself you asked you to come back after being gone for three years.

YT wasn't even in the game until like 2017 either. To claim some longstanding hatred of you among Feds implies that the Feds who targeted you are the ones who were a constant presence from 2013 until now. That is a very small group, and you guys have already taken several of them, so it is kind of hollow argument to make.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hating gay people doesn't make you a traditional conservative, many real life Republicans do that that I would never grant them the title of traditional conservatism to. It does make you a social conservative, which as you said you prefer. Please then don't appropriate terms in that case.

You might want to ask Edmund Burke what he thought about homosexuality and whether he thought it was in accordance with traditionalist conservative values. Your support of social liberal values makes you a libertarian/centrist. Trad cons do not like drugs, because they impair functioning. Trad cons do not like homosexuality because it is contrary to the natural law per Aquinas.

Natural Law is, as you have said, rights given to us by God, but to argue such a thing you are arguing that God exists and that we are bound by His laws. Among which states that homosexuality is sinful.

I never said I was pro-drug, I am very much against the use of tobacco, alcohol and drugs. What I disagree with is the notion that big government is suddenly acceptable when it comes to the war on drugs. That disrupting families and sending fathers to jail, especially minority fathers to jail of a little weed, is counter productive towards the goal of stable homes, stable families and a stable society.

RL conservatives care all about the family and smaller government, except when it comes to the most disruptive of actions taken by the state, The War on Drugs and global interventionism, all of which take dads out of the home. Any policy to help the family economic is labeled as socialist and big government, but when it comes to breaking up families in name of drugs and elective wars, suddenly small government and the stability of the family take a back seat.

You on the other hand have a long history and even in this thread of endorsing hook line and sinker the economic philosophy of the real life American Conservative movement, which is not traditionalist conservative, it is neoliberal.

I am an Austrian like Mises. I support the gold standard. The current Republican consensus save Rand and maybe Cruz and a few others are all devotees of Keynes. I would agree with you that it would be neoliberal if I supported Keynes, but I do not and have never supported him.

Whether you intended to or not, you embraced a libertarian/neoliberal economic philosophy in Cruz that is hostile to traditional conservatism. Austrianism is likewise, because it endorses radical changes to society via the pocketbook in the name of creative destruction and free trade.

[Wisconsin+17]

The people who pushed your expulsion in 2013, left the party in 2014. The problems you have had since have come from antagonistic relationships you have created since you returned in 2016. As I recall, it was tmth himself you asked you to come back after being gone for three years.

Yes, after you agreed that I had been treated badly by him and by the party as a whole. How many times has this happened now?

Hagrid goes off the deep end, expels me. PiT, several years later invites me back. TM goes off the deep end, censures me and my campaign and threatens me via pm. I leave again. Years later TM apologizes and I come back again.

Last time it was fhtagn invites me back again so I rejoin the Feds. Within less than a month, YT leads his crusade after he sells his vote to Labor, evicts me once again from the Delegates and I leave again.  So there's been three seperate occasions when I've had Feds dig their knives in my back.

To claim some longstanding hatred of you among Feds implies that the Feds who targeted you are the ones who were a constant presence from 2013 until now. That is a very small group, and you guys have already taken several of them, so it is kind of hollow argument to make.

You're just reinforcing my point that the issues are longstanding. These are not new problems for the Federalist party. Blaming tradcons for actions we did not initiate is getting pretty old.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The people who pushed your expulsion in 2013, left the party in 2014. The problems you have had since have come from antagonistic relationships you have created since you returned in 2016. As I recall, it was tmth himself you asked you to come back after being gone for three years.

Yes, after you agreed that I had been treated badly by him and by the party as a whole. How many times has this happened now?

Hagrid goes off the deep end, expels me. PiT, several years later invites me back. TM goes off the deep end, censures me and my campaign and threatens me via pm. I leave again. Years later TM apologizes and I come back again.

Last time it was fhtagn invites me back again so I rejoin the Feds. Within less than a month, YT leads his crusade after he sells his vote to Labor, evicts me once again from the Delegates and I leave again.  So there's been three seperate occasions when I've had Feds dig their knives in my back.

To claim some longstanding hatred of you among Feds implies that the Feds who targeted you are the ones who were a constant presence from 2013 until now. That is a very small group, and you guys have already taken several of them, so it is kind of hollow argument to make.

You're just reinforcing my point that the issues are longstanding. These are not new problems for the Federalist party. Blaming tradcons for actions we did not initiate is getting pretty old.

Nobody did this to JCL. I voted to make JCL President! Nobody did this to Pingvin! We made both of them Senators as well. We ran Cathcon for President as well. We supported Zuwo and he was even part of the leadership.

Have you ever stopped to think maybe you made some mistakes along the way? That makes far more sense then some systemic anti-conservative bias on the part of the party.

Have there been times when we struggled to get people to cross support, yes, but we largely solved that problem, and got several very Conservative people elected post-reset.

[Wisconsin+17]

I never said I was pro-drug, I am very much against the use of tobacco, alcohol and drugs. What I disagree with is the notion that big government is suddenly acceptable when it comes to the war on drugs. That disrupting families and sending fathers to jail, especially minority fathers to jail of a little weed, is counter productive towards the goal of stable homes, stable families and a stable society.

You make it sound like drug use is a disease that infects minorities. It's not. Drug use is a choice. That some people make the conscious decision to engage in illegal activities, doesn't change the morality of these activities.  Don't want to leave your infant child fatherless? Don't deal drugs. You make it sound like it's a profoundly challenging philosophy.

RL conservatives care all about the family and smaller government, except when it comes to the most disruptive of actions taken by the state, The War on Drugs

From a social ecology standpoint drugs are profoundly negative to the community as a whole. Rather than building up the family and the community, it is a parasite that drains wealth, health and stability. Why would a traditional conservative who sees the damage that drugs do to his family and friends want to encourage their use?

Any policy to help the family economic is labeled as socialist and big government

Then we get to the question of rule of law. I think the laws against drug dealing are good laws because they act as barriers to discourage people from engaging in this occupation.

Whether you intended to or not, you embraced a libertarian/neoliberal economic philosophy in Cruz that is hostile to traditional conservatism. Austrianism is likewise, because it endorses radical changes to society via the pocketbook in the name of creative destruction and free trade.

Austrians may be many things, but neoliberal they are not. Neoliberal in economics terms applies to Keynes et al. WRT to monetary policy, I'm arguing the traditional conservative views that we should pay down debt and use a stable value rather than fiat. Right out of the Republicans of the late 19th century.

As for Free Trade, that is another beast. I believe that it is beneficial when it is reciprocal by lowering prices that consumers pay. If you are arguing that labor should be artifically constrained to help some trades, the problem with this is that you are arguing that the value of paying one person 10k is greater than the idea of saving 1 million people a penny. It is easy to see the economic benefit to the one worker. It is hard to see how the penny savings benefits society as a whole.

[Wisconsin+17]

Have you ever stopped to think maybe you made some mistakes along the way?

....

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I never said I was pro-drug, I am very much against the use of tobacco, alcohol and drugs. What I disagree with is the notion that big government is suddenly acceptable when it comes to the war on drugs. That disrupting families and sending fathers to jail, especially minority fathers to jail of a little weed, is counter productive towards the goal of stable homes, stable families and a stable society.

You make it sound like drug use is a disease that infects minorities. It's not. Drug use is a choice. That some people make the conscious decision to engage in illegal activities, doesn't change the morality of these activities.  Don't want to leave your infant child fatherless? Don't deal drugs. You make it sound like it's a profoundly challenging philosophy.

RL conservatives care all about the family and smaller government, except when it comes to the most disruptive of actions taken by the state, The War on Drugs

From a social ecology standpoint drugs are profoundly negative to the community as a whole. Rather than building up the family and the community, it is a parasite that drains wealth, health and stability. Why would a traditional conservative who sees the damage that drugs do to his family and friends want to encourage their use?

Any policy to help the family economic is labeled as socialist and big government

Then we get to the question of rule of law. I think the laws against drug dealing are good laws because they act as barriers to discourage people from engaging in this occupation.

Whether you intended to or not, you embraced a libertarian/neoliberal economic philosophy in Cruz that is hostile to traditional conservatism. Austrianism is likewise, because it endorses radical changes to society via the pocketbook in the name of creative destruction and free trade.

Austrians may be many things, but neoliberal they are not. Neoliberal in economics terms applies to Keynes et al. WRT to monetary policy, I'm arguing the traditional conservative views that we should pay down debt and use a stable value rather than fiat. Right out of the Republicans of the late 19th century.

As for Free Trade, that is another beast. I believe that it is beneficial when it is reciprocal by lowering prices that consumers pay. If you are arguing that labor should be artifically constrained to help some trades, the problem with this is that you are arguing that the value of paying one person 10k is greater than the idea of saving 1 million people a penny. It is easy to see the economic benefit to the one worker. It is hard to see how the penny savings benefits society as a whole.

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