June 2020 Federalist Party Convention (Adjourned)

[FairBol]

Signing in as a delegate and all.

[FairBol]

Haven't actually looked at this thread in a while....but Jesus H. Christ, what is going on here? More thoughts coming. 

[FairBol]

OK, I'm going to say my piece here....if I ruffle some feathers with this, so be it. 

So yet again, we have been defeated in a presidential election.  This time, we weren't just beaten, we were SMACKED DOWN.  Let me make a business analogy here.  I don't claim to be the most knowledgeable guy in the world as far as business goes....but every businessman knows that if people don't want to buy what you're selling....well, you're in trouble.  Food for thought. 

Anywho, let's talk about the state of this party. 

Reviewing the past primaries/election cycle, I see more than one instance where someone wished to run for our party's nomination, but were denied that opportunity (seemingly by executive decision).  I quote our Party Bylaws:

III. Endorsements and Primaries
1. Endorsing non-Federalist candidates. If numbers permit the Federalist Party to endorse non-member candidates, candidates seeking the party’s endorsement can submit their names for consideration in the Federalist Party’s main thread or at a party convention. Alternatively, Federalist Party members may move to endorse candidates from other parties. An endorsement vote shall thereafter be held, the logistics of which shall be at the discretion of the party executive. The party shall not be required to endorse any non-Federalist candidates.

Note that the specific rule doesn't say that (after seeking an endorsement) an endorsement vote may be held.  Rather, it says that it "SHALL" be held. 

As this rule is written, we can't limit our primaries to party members.  If someone wishes to run who is not a party member, we need to afford them that opportunity. 

Of course, there are worthy arguments for a closed primary system.  Those arguments notwithstanding, we shouldn't be a party that says one thing, but does another.  We should stick to our word...if we don't do that, then all our words are empty, and mean nothing.

Now for part two of my argument.  As I see things, this party is rapidly slipping into irrelevance.  We can't keep going this way.  How long has it been since we won a presidential race, do you think? How long has it been since we've held a federal majority? I don't know the exact answer to that....but it's been WAY TOO LONG. 

Thus, uncomfortable though it may be, we need to take a hard look at our policies and practices.  I don't mean that we should change our stances on the issues, per se.  Rather, I mean that we need to look at the internal structure of this party; who we are, and what we stand for. 

Like it or not, the political landscape of Atlasia has evolved over the past few elections.  Here's the thing about evolution; those species that survive and endure are the ones best able to adapt to change.  Species that aren't able to adapt...well, they end up like the dinosaurs....extinct.  That's what we're facing here.     

Today, I ask my fellow Federalists to take a look in the mirror, and ask themselves if they like what they see.  If not, then it's time to make a few changes.  We should not be afraid of these changes; instead, we should embrace them.  Change is tough, but sometimes necessary.  Let's do what is necessary for this party's revitalization....and survival. 

[FairBol]

So I'm aware that Yankee is on reduced activity today, but I'd like to get his thoughts on what I posted.  No rush, though, Yankee....if you can't get to it tonight, get to it tomorrow.  Take care of yourself...RL always comes first. 

[FairBol]

Crap....for some reason, I read S019's post as being June, rather than July.  On that point, I stand corrected...mea culpa. 

[FairBol]

It's easy to make the observation that 'we can't keep going this way,' and it's also easy to blame the party for 'not doing enough.' But the fact of the matter is that Labor has a voter registration edge of 43 votes, which is actually closer to 60 votes when you factor in Peace and the LJP. Perhaps you can tell us where we're supposed to find 43 votes (or more accurately, a net 43 votes, because Labor will surely be doing their own recruiting as well)?

I understand that Labor has a large edge in initial numbers.  Those numbers are, in any election, going to be hard to overcome.  Nevertheless, we can't just roll over and play dead.  Whether or not you think we're doing enough, if we truly believe in the principles of liberty and small government, we should be willing to fight for them.  Otherwise, what's the point?

[FairBol]

Just asking here, but did we ever hold an election for Party Leader last month? Bylaws say June for one of those....I know, I know, the month isn't over yet. 

[FairBol]

If the left is ansy about the situation then do something on your side to improve it, but I can tell you, we are not going to be the left's yo-yo and we aren't going to take the hit because you guys get bored.

It sure seems like we've been "the left's yo-yo" as of late.  Just saying. 

[FairBol]

Just asking here, but did we ever hold an election for Party Leader last month? Bylaws say June for one of those....I know, I know, the month isn't over yet. 

Yankee is going to be our leader until he dies. He's the only one keeping us from dying. Without him, you will see the moderates/center-right wingers move to labor and the rest of us create some neo-confederate ACP for shts and giggles

I believe that we should have the leadership election anyway.  Re-elect Yankee by acclamation/unopposed if you want...but again, we should adhere to our own bylaws.

[FairBol]

OK, that's cool. 

[FairBol]

I hereby declare my candidacy for the position of Party Chairman.  A speech will be forthcoming. 

[FairBol]

My fellow Federalists,

The mission of this party has always been to protect liberty through the election of principled leaders.  In that respect, I am pained to report that we have utterly failed as of late.  Right now, the Labor-Left coalition is enjoying one of its greatest periods of growth ever.  That doesn't bode well for Federalists....or for freedom. 

I probably don't need to tell you that we can't continue in this way, at least not if we expect to be taken seriously.  If we are to remain viable, we need to make some changes, difficult though they may be to make.  Those changes start at the very top of the party. 

Now, a word about Yankee.  His leadership and political skills have served this party well; I have no doubt that this will continue in the future.  Even so, it seems to me that lately, Yankee has developed an attitude of apathy, or "yeah, the left's winning.  What do you want me to do about it?".  I don't believe that this kind of attitude is good for our long-term future. 

Thus, I believe that maybe it's time to look in a different direction than that of our current chairman's leadership.  All due respect to Yankee, but if he's not willing to "run with the big dogs" (so to speak), he should "stay on the porch". 

As Federalists, we all believe in the principles of small government, liberty, and freedom.  Right now, the prevailing view is against these principles.  Nevertheless, it is inherently one of our "mission objectives" to stand and fight for these beliefs.  At the moment, we don't seem to be doing too much of that.  Therefore, perhaps it's time that we started to fight back. 

The left doesn't think we have any fight in us; I know better.  As chairman, I won't throw up my hands at the situation, and say "oh well, what can I do?". 

There is a path for this party, and liberty, going forward in Atlasia.  There is a fight that is worthy of having.  Whatever happens, let's make the left remember that FEDERALISTS DON'T GO DOWN WITHOUT A FIGHT.  We all know what we need to do; now, let's do it.   

If you agree with my vision, I'd greatly appreciate your vote for Party Chairman. 


"There are those who talk about it, and there are those who BE ABOUT IT" -- WWE personality John Cena

[FairBol]

So which party are we going to be...a party which simply talks about fighting the good fight, or a party that actually fights? It's time to decide. 

[FairBol]

Now, a word about Yankee.  His leadership and political skills have served this party well; I have no doubt that this will continue in the future.  Even so, it seems to me that lately, Yankee has developed an attitude of apathy, or "yeah, the left's winning.  What do you want me to do about it?".  I don't believe that this kind of attitude is good for our long-term future.

That is not what I said at all.

I didn't say that was what you said.  I said that's the attitude that you seem to have recently developed.  BIG difference.

That means there are two options, give up and leave the game (something I have had to fight back against every single cycle from one form or another) or two make the best of the bad situation until the demographics improve.

Or a third option; recruit like crazy, stay active, and try to make "the bad situation" better. 

Thus, I believe that maybe it's time to look in a different direction than that of our current chairman's leadership.  All due respect to Yankee, but if he's not willing to "run with the big dogs" (so to speak), he should "stay on the porch".

Do you have some secret magic trick to create 40 conservative posters out of thin air. Its easy to mouth platitudes about fighting back, but it is rather annoying considering I just laid out far more concrete steps including AFE Board activism to actually achieve that objective.

I don't have an immediate answer for this, other than not giving up.  Look, I have no personal issue with you.  The only thing I'm a bit upset about is this defeatist attitude you seem to have developed.
 
What's that? You say you don't have a defeatist attitude? Did you or did you not recently post this:

No matter how much you curb factionalism and ego on the right, there is no natural majority that comes together to deliver victory.

?

And have you or have you not recently engaged in frequent public criticism of other Federalists? Here's an example. 

LfromNJ is also incredibly naive and inexperienced. He let a single defeat wreck him and has spent the months since refusing to cooperate because he is not satisfied with other people's efforts.

There is a certain phrase that comes to mind; that being Reagan's Commandment.  "Never speak ill of a fellow Republican".  Now, seeing as we're not Republicans, but Federalists, that phrase may or may not apply here.  Nevertheless, I think this is common sense. 

As Federalists, we all believe in the principles of small government, liberty, and freedom.  Right now, the prevailing view is against these principles.  Nevertheless, it is inherently one of our "mission objectives" to stand and fight for these beliefs.  At the moment, we don't seem to be doing too much of that.  Therefore, perhaps it's time that we started to fight back.

The left doesn't think we have any fight in us; I know better.  As chairman, I won't throw up my hands at the situation, and say "oh well, what can I do?".

I have never done that.

The evidence presented seems to disagree with you. 

There is a path for this party, and liberty, going forward in Atlasia.  There is a fight that is worthy of having.  Whatever happens, let's make the left remember that FEDERALISTS DON'T GO DOWN WITHOUT A FIGHT.  We all know what we need to do; now, let's do it.   

If you agree with my vision, I'd greatly appreciate your vote for Party Chairman. 


"There are those who talk about it, and there are those who BE ABOUT IT" -- WWE personality John Cena

Why should the party trust its leadership to someone who has to be dragged back via facebook every cycle and is perpetually on the list of invalids or near invalid voters?

Sure beats trusting in someone that would rather go after other members, and surrender to the left, than stand and fight. 

There's a time to admit defeat, and a time to "give 'em hell".  The latter time is now. 

[FairBol]

I nominate Indianapolis, Indiana, as the host city for the next convention. 

[FairBol]

Now, a word about Yankee.  His leadership and political skills have served this party well; I have no doubt that this will continue in the future.  Even so, it seems to me that lately, Yankee has developed an attitude of apathy, or "yeah, the left's winning.  What do you want me to do about it?".  I don't believe that this kind of attitude is good for our long-term future.

That is not what I said at all.

I didn't say that was what you said.  I said that's the attitude that you seem to have recently developed.  BIG difference.

How does one divine one's attitude in a forum except via what someone has posted? You cannot see my facial expression nor read my body language. There is only the words I have written on this board and on discord and none of which have ever conveyed a desire to give up or turn tail and run and I resent the implication that such is being alleged.

You're saying I'm putting words in your mouth.  I get that, but I'd have to disagree.  Again, did you or did you not make the statements that I have alleged you made? You're correct that I can't see your face, or know exactly what you're thinking.  All I have to go on are your words, which I am seeking to hold you to.  When someone says they are going to do (or not do) something, it's at least advisable to take them at their word.   

That means there are two options, give up and leave the game (something I have had to fight back against every single cycle from one form or another) or two make the best of the bad situation until the demographics improve.

Or a third option; recruit like crazy, stay active, and try to make "the bad situation" better.

 

How is that different from making the best of a bad situation?

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me, "making the best" of it implies a general attitude of "going along to get along".  I don't claim to be a mind-reader...far from it...but that's how things seem to me.  I've never been a fan of that. 

Thus, I believe that maybe it's time to look in a different direction than that of our current chairman's leadership.  All due respect to Yankee, but if he's not willing to "run with the big dogs" (so to speak), he should "stay on the porch".

Do you have some secret magic trick to create 40 conservative posters out of thin air. Its easy to mouth platitudes about fighting back, but it is rather annoying considering I just laid out far more concrete steps including AFE Board activism to actually achieve that objective.

I don't have an immediate answer for this, other than not giving up.  Look, I have no personal issue with you.  The only thing I'm a bit upset about is this defeatist attitude you seem to have developed.
 
What's that? You say you don't have a defeatist attitude? Did you or did you not recently post this:

No matter how much you curb factionalism and ego on the right, there is no natural majority that comes together to deliver victory.

?

I can read and map and do math? Am I suppose to be indenial about the current numbers? You cannot fix a problem unless you understand it and accept it first and that is what I was doing there.[/quote]

Obviously you can, and so can I.  We've been smacked around; I know we're down.  The difference between me and you is that you (apparently) think we've been knocked out, whereas I don't.  I see hope, and a light at the end of the tunnel.  You, on the other hand, want to let the left continue to run the show. 

By the way, when (for example) a baseball team underperforms, who's usually the first team member to get the heave-ho? It's the manager.  Ultimately, the performance of the team is his responsibility.  The manager does what he needs to do in order to win.  If he doesn't or can't do that....well, the next step is the unemployment line. 

In the same way, our performance (or lack thereof) as of late is your responsibility. Positive change always begins at the top.  It's time to make that change.

Again read what I said, your points are flawed or otherwise misunderstand the situation.

The point about LfromNJ notwithstanding, I don't think they are inherently "flawed".  And I don't think I'm misunderstanding things. 

The fact of the matter is, we've been getting defeated at every turn by the left.  That's the current problem.  There are two ways to deal with this issue.  We can either maintain the status quo, and continue to get OWNED by Labor and the left....or, we can make necessary changes, and begin to be competitive again.  Which way we go is up to the membership.

As Federalists, we all believe in the principles of small government, liberty, and freedom.  Right now, the prevailing view is against these principles.  Nevertheless, it is inherently one of our "mission objectives" to stand and fight for these beliefs.  At the moment, we don't seem to be doing too much of that.  Therefore, perhaps it's time that we started to fight back.

The left doesn't think we have any fight in us; I know better.  As chairman, I won't throw up my hands at the situation, and say "oh well, what can I do?".

I have never done that.

The evidence presented seems to disagree with you.

Not it doesn't.

I see we have a difference of opinion.  Let's let our fellow Federalists decide which of us is correct.   

[FairBol]

As Federalists, we all believe in the principles of small government, liberty, and freedom.  Right now, the prevailing view is against these principles.  Nevertheless, it is inherently one of our "mission objectives" to stand and fight for these beliefs.  At the moment, we don't seem to be doing too much of that.  Therefore, perhaps it's time that we started to fight back.

The left doesn't think we have any fight in us; I know better.  As chairman, I won't throw up my hands at the situation, and say "oh well, what can I do?".

I have never done that.

The evidence presented seems to disagree with you.

Not it doesn't.

I see we have a difference of opinion.  Let's let our fellow Federalists decide which of us is correct.   

There is no opinion and there is no debate. You have twisted my words in the fashion of mainstream liberal media and used it as an excuse to attack and insult my record as leader of this party.

Playing the desperation game, I see.  Spin, or try to spin, this conversation all you want.  The fact of the matter is this; by your own words, you have admitted that we are not competitive, and that you will do nothing to change that/attempt to change it.  No amount of spin will negate this fact. 

Were you even aware of ACP's merger into the Feds? We recruited somewhere around 6 to 8 people as I recall in the lead up to this election and they recruited more than 20 to counter it.

As I recall, I believe I voted in favor of the merger.  So yes, I was well aware of merger talks between our two caucuses, and the subsequent vote to approve the merger. 

I think I've said about all I wish to say on the leadership election.  It's time for the voters to decide this matter.  I'll leave you with this thought. 

The choice between the two candidates could not be more clear.  If you want the Labor coalition to continue to kick our asses, then by all means, vote for Yankee.  If you'd rather have a competitive Federalist Party, and perhaps a bit more fun in this game, then you should cast your vote for me.  Either way, the future of the Federalist Party is in your hands. 

[FairBol]

One more post, I guess. 

1. Yankee is one of the few people that has yet to give up in the past year and he's always encouraging more people to get involved, voice their opinion, and run. He's also one of the few to stress the right being sane even during times like this

Hmmm....define "giving up".  BY HIS OWN WORDS, Yankee says that "no action is necessary".  Those are his words, not mine.  So even though we have not won a presidential election since God knows when, "no action is necessary"....just go along with the status quo, because we can't beat the left.  Come on, give me a break!  Are we people here, or are we mice?

Also, I'm supposedly taking things out of context by using words that Yankee himself wrote? In case you didn't notice, that's what every politician says when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. "Oh....I didn't say that.  You must've heard me wrong".  Second verse, same as the first.   

2. Yankee has been pushing us to recruit. Idk if you have tried, but it's difficult. You saw me post a recruitment thread and saw the lack of responses. We tried outside options. We try pming old and new members. Some people just don't want to do this.

Just because we've tried and failed to pull in large numbers of recruits, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to do that.  We're not quite dead yet, so let's not act like we are. 

Yankee brought up an interesting point about how his political views make him in the middle between the center right and the hard right. That makes him pretty qualified to be the leader of the right-winged party in this game. To my knowledge, no one else (besides LT who isn't running) could fit that description.

There's no doubt that Yankee is indeed qualified to be a leader of this party.  In fact, I'll pledge now to keep him on as a deputy if I'm elected.  However....his qualifications aside, Yankee represents the status quo.  If you're OK with the status quo, then vote for Yankee.  There's another choice, though.
 
And sometimes, you have to change things up...or fall deeper into irrelevance. 

[FairBol]

Official Ballot
Leadership
Chair:
[ ] North Carolina Yankee
[X] Fairbol

Vice Chair:
[X] LouisvilleThunder


Convention Cities:
[6] Charlottesville, VA
[2] Providence, RI
[5] Kansas City, MO
[1] Indianapolis, IN
[4] Atlanta, GA
[ ] Minneapolis, MN
[ ] Conservative (previously know a Liberal), Kansas, Southern Region, Atlasia.
[ ] Clinton, NC
[3] St. Louis, MO


July Offices

Southern Governor:
[ ] MB
[X] NOTA

Southern Chamber:
[2] Spark498
[1] Jessica
[ ] NOTA

Lincoln Governor:
[X] ReaganClinton20xx
[ ] NOTA

Lincoln Council:
[3] Brother Jonathan
[2] Laki
[1] SO19
[ ] NOTA

[FairBol]

2. Preffing non-Federalists (including one of the worst) above actual Federalist candidates for upcoming elections disqualifies you from being anywhere close to becoming the party's chair. You don't even deserve a pref...

I'm sorry? Which candidate was it that was a non-Federalist?

BTW, there were three choices...I ranked them in order of my preference, as the process allows for.  You had your vote, and I had mine.  If I made a mistake, it was mine alone.  Unless you're whipping votes in a major election, and/or designated as the whip, don't tell me (although you may suggest) how to vote.  And get off your high horse. 

[FairBol]

Congrats on your win, Yankee.  This party is now firmly in the hands of the surrender crowd. 

I may or may not have more to say later (after I cool down a bit)....but it is obvious that the membership has no desire to see things change for the better.  When you consistently have failure after failure, then you have to change something.  There's no reason to be in this party if we're going to resign ourselves to failure. 

Yeah, call it a "rage quit" if you want....but I'm out.  I guess I'm too conservative for even the conservative wing of the Atlas Federalist Party. 

[FairBol]

:: looks at the discussion, and laughs ::

[FairBol]

You are mocking this party, now.

I am.  It's funny to me to see the dysfunction that is apparent here.  You had your chance to embrace change...but you blew it.  If my words are offensive to you, well...BITE ME. 

[FairBol]

The voters made their choice.

Yes they did. 

I offered you a high ranking position in the leadership afterwards, to give you a chance to prove to the party members that you had something concrete to offer.

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any such offer from you.  I could be mistaken, though. 

At this point it isn't about the success of the right anymore it seems, which was your priority stated during the campaign, but ego dictating your every answer and response.

Says the guy who dismisses legitimate voting concerns (along with Fhtagn), and moans about being "sick" of "arcane (ass) bylaws".  Pot, meet kettle.  Kettle, meet pot.